2012 Thoughts and My Surprising Choice
When I consider the 2012 Presidential election, I’m reminded that someone once said that there are really only two election themes: “Wonderful New World” and “Back to Basics.” We cycle between these in politics, just as we cycle between our two major political parties.
Barack Obama’s election was the definition of the “Wonderful New World” campaign, with Change and Hope becoming gods that seemed destined to bring about a post-racial, post-partisan utopia. And, in that sense, Barack Obama was right to compare himself to Ronald Reagan, who ran the most recent Wonderful New World campaign with his theme of Morning in America and his followers calling the election the “Reagan Revolution.” JFK’s and FDR’s campaigns were equally transformational.
When the pendulum swings too far in one direction, however, the public inevitably wants it to swing back. “Miss Me Yet?” merchandise is extremely popular, and the public has had its fill of change, as every poll testifies.
In this context, I’m reminded of the election of 1920. Warren Harding ran on a slogan of a “Return to Normalcy,” and he largely campaigned from his home in Marion, Indiana, inviting political leaders and the media to visit him there and rejecting the flamboyance of other political campaigns. He seemed very down to earth, and the public, exhausted by WWI, loved it and elected Harding with 60% of the vote.
It’s early, but the 2012 election is shaping up in similar fashion. Voters are going to want someone they can trust. They already know that they blew it in electing someone with as little experience as Barack Obama, and they are going to want a steady hand on the wheel to steer the ship of state into calmer waters. I think that this desire will accelerate if the situation with Iran gets out of control in the next two years, and I firmly believe that it will.
So I don’t think that the GOP should nominate a young candidate with exciting new ideas. It should nominate someone who can command the trust of the electorate while unifying the party. That candidate isn’t Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or Sarah Palin, or any of the other also-rans of 2008. It definitely isn’t Newt Gingrich. On the other hand, Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, and John Thune all have some appeal and could make good candidates, but there are also some question marks and none of them specifically excite me.
So it was in the context of these thoughts that I realized who I wanted to run, and it shocked me. It’s this man:
Jeb was always the conservative of the Bush brothers — many activists (like me) wanted him to run in 2000 instead of his older brother. Even before his election as Florida’s governor, Jeb co-founded Florida’s first charter school. As governor, he was both a social and economic conservative and consistently worked to lower taxes and restrain spending.
Because Jeb was an extremely popular and successful governor of Florida, he would enter the 2012 general election with a key swing state already in his pocket.
Jeb’s wife Columba is Mexican, and Jeb speaks effortless Spanish. In his re-election in 2002, he received 56% of the hispanic vote, matching the 56% he won statewide. If that pattern were repeated in a nationwide campaign, it would put New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado solidly into the GOP column, and it might very well put California into play. A hispanic First Lady could help realign the country and bring hispanics (who are universally strong social conservatives) into the GOP where they belong.
Needless to say, fundraising would be effortless for a Jeb campaign. His own long donor list in Florida would be dwarfed by the massive fundraising structure that could quickly reassemble from his brother’s campaigns.
Most of all, Jeb is a proven commodity who would be trusted. Until the last six months, I would have thought that the Bush name would hurt Jeb’s chances of ever being elected President. As the “Miss Me?” signs and merchandise indicate, I don’t think so now. If President Obama’s weak foreign policy produces more problems with Iran and the Middle East, and if he continues to revert to a 9/10 position on terrorism, then a crisis in the Middle East or successful terror attack on the U.S. will increase the nostalgia for a President who was determined to protect the country. If unemployment is still near double digits in 2011 and the economy is weak, as I think it will be, then we’ll see even more of that.
Jeb is having a great year so far with his behind-the-scenes support of new conservative rock star Marco Rubio, and that support seems to be coming out into the open. Rubio’s backing in a Presidential bid, which Jeb would almost certainly receive, would be a powerful aid in persuading conservatives (who might be leery of Jeb’s last name) to climb aboard his campaign.
Jeb 2012! I wouldn’t have thought this even a few weeks ago, but I’m on board.
UPDATE 2-25: John Miller was thinking along the same lines this morning. And I just found this column from yesterday.
I'll admit that if there is any hope of a quality president coming from the Bush family it's Jeb. On the other hand, it's a very hard sell to say that the transformative leader the GOP needs to dramatically reform entitlements and reorient the economy is a Bush.
I see what you're saying, but as good a guy as Jeb is I can't see him gaining any traction in a Republican primary. He's going to have to try to distance himself from his brother, and I don't know how he does that.
I'll admit that if there is any hope of a quality president coming from the Bush family it's Jeb. On the other hand, it's a very hard sell to say that the transformative leader the GOP needs to dramatically reform entitlements and reorient the economy is a Bush.
I see what you're saying, but as good a guy as Jeb is I can't see him gaining any traction in a Republican primary. He's going to have to try to distance himself from his brother, and I don't know how he does that.
We'll see. Another year of the Obamacession will have a lot of people wistfully longing for the good ole days of President Bush. Not to mention what will happen if there's (God forbid) another terrorist attack — I already miss having a President who didn't want to give foreign terrorists Miranda rights.
We'll see. Another year of the Obamacession will have a lot of people wistfully longing for the good ole days of President Bush. Not to mention what will happen if there's (God forbid) another terrorist attack — I already miss having a President who didn't want to give foreign terrorists Miranda rights.
Scott, you comment touches on another topic that I'd like to mention. The GOP base wants, as you put it, "transformative" change in the next election. That desire for transformative change undergirds much of the Tea Party movement.
But, as I said, that isn't what I think the general public is going to want. They are going to be like someone with a migrane who just wants the pain to stop and things to be the way they were before the pain started. They've had enough change for a while.
Ryan, the people not just in the GOP but all over the country want to be left alone. They want lower taxes, less regulation, less federal power and fiscal discipline.
That's transformative change in government but it's not really transformative with respect to people's lives – other than the likely economic renaissance it would engender.
Well, Scott, in your earlier comment, you mentioned "dramatic" entitlement reform, which is certainly transformative change with respect to people's lives, so I'm a bit confused about your argument.
In this context, it's worth noting that President Bush did make a valiant effort to reform Social Security and give Americans more control over the money we earn — and he lost brutally and it destroyed his second term. Entitlement reform ain't ping pong. It's hard in the best of times. It won't happen in 2013 unless our finances look like Greece's do now.
I should also correct the record here, because I seem to have implied that Jeb is a cookie-cutter Republican, which isn't the case. Jeb does have genuinely transformative ideas that he passionately supports.
Take education as an example. Besides his well-known support of charter schools, Jeb has argued for completely remaking our education system by removing the construct of "grades" and promoting students based on a credit system similar to that used by universities. Once little Johnny has completed the course on fractions, he moves on to the course on percents, no matter how much or how little "seat time" he's put in. Promotion to the next course is based on results, not on the fact that his butt has been in class for 180 days.
That's truly radical — and as a certified teacher I enthusiastically endorse the idea. Jeb is a staunch conservative, but he's certainly got new proposals through which to communicate that conservatism.
I think he's the best I've seen on education, and I have no doubt of Jeb's conservatism with the exception of (as noted in this comment thread) a somewhat-shaky record on immigration and offshore drilling.
I'll say this, though, on your above comment about entitlement reform. We'll be LUCKY if by 2013 our finances don't look like Greece. I give us two years, tops, with trillion-dollar deficits before Japan and China and the other foreign creditors pull the plug on us. We're at the bottom step of the inflation staircase right now, and once we start climbing we're going to have a real problem on our hands – the Medicare bankruptcy currently projected for 2015 probably accelerates to 2013 or maybe 2012, for example. In that context, what was not possible with W will become universally recognized as necessary for the next president.
Scott, you comment touches on another topic that I'd like to mention. The GOP base wants, as you put it, "transformative" change in the next election. That desire for transformative change undergirds much of the Tea Party movement.
But, as I said, that isn't what I think the general public is going to want. They are going to be like someone with a migrane who just wants the pain to stop and things to be the way they were before the pain started. They've had enough change for a while.
Ryan, the people not just in the GOP but all over the country want to be left alone. They want lower taxes, less regulation, less federal power and fiscal discipline.
That's transformative change in government but it's not really transformative with respect to people's lives – other than the likely economic renaissance it would engender.
Well, Scott, in your earlier comment, you mentioned "dramatic" entitlement reform, which is certainly transformative change with respect to people's lives, so I'm a bit confused about your argument.
In this context, it's worth noting that President Bush did make a valiant effort to reform Social Security and give Americans more control over the money we earn — and he lost brutally and it destroyed his second term. Entitlement reform ain't ping pong. It's hard in the best of times. It won't happen in 2013 unless our finances look like Greece's do now.
I should also correct the record here, because I seem to have implied that Jeb is a cookie-cutter Republican, which isn't the case. Jeb does have genuinely transformative ideas that he passionately supports.
Take education as an example. Besides his well-known support of charter schools, Jeb has argued for completely remaking our education system by removing the construct of "grades" and promoting students based on a credit system similar to that used by universities. Once little Johnny has completed the course on fractions, he moves on to the course on percents, no matter how much or how little "seat time" he's put in. Promotion to the next course is based on results, not on the fact that his butt has been in class for 180 days.
That's truly radical — and as a certified teacher I enthusiastically endorse the idea. Jeb is a staunch conservative, but he's certainly got new proposals through which to communicate that conservatism.
I think he's the best I've seen on education, and I have no doubt of Jeb's conservatism with the exception of (as noted in this comment thread) a somewhat-shaky record on immigration and offshore drilling.
I'll say this, though, on your above comment about entitlement reform. We'll be LUCKY if by 2013 our finances don't look like Greece. I give us two years, tops, with trillion-dollar deficits before Japan and China and the other foreign creditors pull the plug on us. We're at the bottom step of the inflation staircase right now, and once we start climbing we're going to have a real problem on our hands – the Medicare bankruptcy currently projected for 2015 probably accelerates to 2013 or maybe 2012, for example. In that context, what was not possible with W will become universally recognized as necessary for the next president.
I do think we got the wrong Bush in 2000, but I'm not going to work for Jeb in a primary. I don't think he can be trusted on amnesty and border enforcement. (And that's nothing to do with his wife, it's his public pronouncements on the issue.) Theoretically I could be convinced if he went on the record and brought the right people on board, but in the mix of any likely primary and general election I don't much expect that he would.
I do think we got the wrong Bush in 2000, but I'm not going to work for Jeb in a primary. I don't think he can be trusted on amnesty and border enforcement. (And that's nothing to do with his wife, it's his public pronouncements on the issue.) Theoretically I could be convinced if he went on the record and brought the right people on board, but in the mix of any likely primary and general election I don't much expect that he would.
Not just no, but HELL NO. First of all, the American electorate is unlikely to send someone to Washington named "Bush" again any time soon. Secondly, Bush is on the wrong side of the debate on two crucial issues: illegal immigration/border security and domestic offshore oil and gas development, two issues which are vital to the US economy and national security.
I agree, these are two severe handicaps. But then all the GOP prospects of the moment have baggage.
The people of Florida have historically been highly opposed to offshore drilling When he was Florida's governor, Jeb attempted to negotiate a compromise that would have allowed drilling 125 miles offshore — and he was severely attacked for it. Now that he's out of office, he's stated his clear support for offshore drilling: http://politicalinsider.blogs.heraldtribune.com/1…
Not just no, but HELL NO. First of all, the American electorate is unlikely to send someone to Washington named "Bush" again any time soon. Secondly, Bush is on the wrong side of the debate on two crucial issues: illegal immigration/border security and domestic offshore oil and gas development, two issues which are vital to the US economy and national security.
I agree, these are two severe handicaps. But then all the GOP prospects of the moment have baggage.
The people of Florida have historically been highly opposed to offshore drilling When he was Florida's governor, Jeb attempted to negotiate a compromise that would have allowed drilling 125 miles offshore — and he was severely attacked for it. Now that he's out of office, he's stated his clear support for offshore drilling: http://politicalinsider.blogs.heraldtribune.com/1…
NO – I will stay on home and let Karl Marx win rather than vote for another neo-con, spoiled brat, Skull and Bonesman.
"Jeb is a proven commodity who would be trusted." Jeb is not worthy of my trust or any one else's trust. I miss Jimmy Carter more than I miss his low-life brother and daddy. At least the Carter of the 70's seemed like an honest man. Watching a Bush speak makes me nasty.
One more idiotic, RNC kool-aid drinking editorial like this and I will reroute The Hayride's updates to the spam box.
What's a neo-con?
Skull and Bones, last time I checked, has never had a branch office at the University of Texas in Austin. I'd appreciate it if you'd share with us why you consider Jeb to be a "spoiled brat," as I have always thought that Jeb conducted himself with decorum.
On a more personal note, it seems that you have a low tolerance of opinions that you disagree with. Since Scott wants The Hayride to have a number of contributors with different viewpoints, I fear this may not be the blog for you.
NO – I will stay on home and let Karl Marx win rather than vote for another neo-con, spoiled brat, Skull and Bonesman.
"Jeb is a proven commodity who would be trusted." Jeb is not worthy of my trust or any one else's trust. I miss Jimmy Carter more than I miss his low-life brother and daddy. At least the Carter of the 70's seemed like an honest man. Watching a Bush speak makes me nasty.
One more idiotic, RNC kool-aid drinking editorial like this and I will reroute The Hayride's updates to the spam box.
What's a neo-con?
Skull and Bones, last time I checked, has never had a branch office at the University of Texas in Austin. I'd appreciate it if you'd share with us why you consider Jeb to be a "spoiled brat," as I have always thought that Jeb conducted himself with decorum.
On a more personal note, it seems that you have a low tolerance of opinions that you disagree with. Since Scott wants The Hayride to have a number of contributors with different viewpoints, I fear this may not be the blog for you.
At first I thought.. Damn, Scott, what has gotten into you… until I saw that he didn't write it.
The top P/VP duo for 2012 is Thune/DeMint in my opinion. Thune has received very high marks from the American Conservative Union in the past. Also, prior to the last election, only one winning party (who wasn't the incumbent candidate) since the 1920's did NOT have a tie to the old South: Nixon/Ford.
2000-2008 Bush: Texas
1992-2000 Clinton: Arkansas
1988-2002 Bush: Texas
1980-1988 Bush: Texas
1976-1980 Carter: Georgia
1972-1976 No ties, but Nixon was the incumbent.
1968-1972 Arnew: Maryland
1964-1968 Johnson: Texas
1960-1964 Johnson: Texas
1952-1960 Eisenhower: Texas
1945-1952 Truman (incumbent): Missouri
1932-1945 Garner: Texas (First VP for FDR and FDR then the incumbent)
1928-1932 Hoover/Curtis.. Hoover from Iowa & Curtis was from Kansas.
I didn't write it, I respect what Ryan is saying and if he was Jeb Williams or Jeb Thomas or something I'd say he was clearly the best available candidate but I just don't think another Bush is going to fly. I think that's something of a shame because Jeb would have been a better president than his brother.
Thune is an interesting candidate. Mitch Daniels is an interesting candidate. Jim Demint is a dream come true but he might be a little controversial from an electability standpoint at the top of the ticket. As a Veep the idea of him debating Biden is worth the price of admission all by itself.
But I'm not sure the best GOP candidate isn't somebody none of us are considering. I think a guy who's a completely new face, maybe a corporate CEO or a self-made entrepreneur type who's been involved in politics for a long time as a donor but not a candidate, might be a sharper contrast against Obama. If nothing else, somebody who comes out of nowhere who the Democrats can't sic their oppo research people on effectively for lack of time a la Scott Brown might be the way to go.
BTW For_Country, please shoot me an e-mail when you get a chance at macaoidh@cox.net.
At first I thought.. Damn, Scott, what has gotten into you… until I saw that he didn't write it.
The top P/VP duo for 2012 is Thune/DeMint in my opinion. Thune has received very high marks from the American Conservative Union in the past. Also, prior to the last election, only one winning party (who wasn't the incumbent candidate) since the 1920's did NOT have a tie to the old South: Nixon/Ford.
2000-2008 Bush: Texas
1992-2000 Clinton: Arkansas
1988-2002 Bush: Texas
1980-1988 Bush: Texas
1976-1980 Carter: Georgia
1972-1976 No ties, but Nixon was the incumbent.
1968-1972 Arnew: Maryland
1964-1968 Johnson: Texas
1960-1964 Johnson: Texas
1952-1960 Eisenhower: Texas
1945-1952 Truman (incumbent): Missouri
1932-1945 Garner: Texas (First VP for FDR and FDR then the incumbent)
1928-1932 Hoover/Curtis.. Hoover from Iowa & Curtis was from Kansas.
I didn't write it, I respect what Ryan is saying and if he was Jeb Williams or Jeb Thomas or something I'd say he was clearly the best available candidate but I just don't think another Bush is going to fly. I think that's something of a shame because Jeb would have been a better president than his brother.
Thune is an interesting candidate. Mitch Daniels is an interesting candidate. Jim Demint is a dream come true but he might be a little controversial from an electability standpoint at the top of the ticket. As a Veep the idea of him debating Biden is worth the price of admission all by itself.
But I'm not sure the best GOP candidate isn't somebody none of us are considering. I think a guy who's a completely new face, maybe a corporate CEO or a self-made entrepreneur type who's been involved in politics for a long time as a donor but not a candidate, might be a sharper contrast against Obama. If nothing else, somebody who comes out of nowhere who the Democrats can't sic their oppo research people on effectively for lack of time a la Scott Brown might be the way to go.
BTW For_Country, please shoot me an e-mail when you get a chance at macaoidh@cox.net.
HEY, SCOTT!! You don't need any friends like Ender 42 (whatever the hell that is!). His thinking is so twisted that it will never get straight who karl marx was (isn't he the current President -under a different name- of the U.S.now?)
I do not know what a neo-con is, Guest, but it sounds as tho it is a name that someone who has his @#$%^^&% where his mouth should be calls someone with whom he disagrees!
Most of the time when people gripe about "neo-cons," what they really mean is Republicans who are Jews. It's a source of annoyance to me, because anti-semitism is a sign of stupidity and unserious thinking. And as a result I don't waste a lot of time answering anything they have to say.
But sometimes the "neo-con" label is also applied to those (like Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin) who strongly support the state of Israel. But then, that's almost always the same anti-Semitism again. (I do recognize that it's theoretically possible to be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic, but I don't think that very many such people actually exist.)
neo-con originated in the 60s to describe democrats who agreed with scoop jackson on foreign policy. Nowadays it refers to republicans who espouse an active interventionist foreign policy and are moderate on domestic policy.
and yes there is wide disagreement on the definition
HEY, SCOTT!! You don't need any friends like Ender 42 (whatever the hell that is!). His thinking is so twisted that it will never get straight who karl marx was (isn't he the current President -under a different name- of the U.S.now?)
I do not know what a neo-con is, Guest, but it sounds as tho it is a name that someone who has his @#$%^^&% where his mouth should be calls someone with whom he disagrees!
Most of the time when people gripe about "neo-cons," what they really mean is Republicans who are Jews. It's a source of annoyance to me, because anti-semitism is a sign of stupidity and unserious thinking. And as a result I don't waste a lot of time answering anything they have to say.
But sometimes the "neo-con" label is also applied to those (like Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin) who strongly support the state of Israel. But then, that's almost always the same anti-Semitism again. (I do recognize that it's theoretically possible to be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic, but I don't think that very many such people actually exist.)
neo-con originated in the 60s to describe democrats who agreed with scoop jackson on foreign policy. Nowadays it refers to republicans who espouse an active interventionist foreign policy and are moderate on domestic policy.
and yes there is wide disagreement on the definition
You do realize that from a high-rise condo, you MIGHT be able to see a platform rig 10 miles out?
Jeb Bush could have still taken a states-rights stance by fighting against drilling within state waters. When Cuba is exploring off their coast, 90 miles from Florida, arguing against anything farther away than that is completely absurd, I don't care what the tourists thought.
I wonder how the tourists get their RVs down to Florida during the year…
You do realize that from a high-rise condo, you MIGHT be able to see a platform rig 10 miles out?
Jeb Bush could have still taken a states-rights stance by fighting against drilling within state waters. When Cuba is exploring off their coast, 90 miles from Florida, arguing against anything farther away than that is completely absurd, I don't care what the tourists thought.
I wonder how the tourists get their RVs down to Florida during the year…
Jeb Bush? He may be the "more conservative" of the Bush family, but we don't live in a monarchy. The "entitled" inbred of our elected leaders is part of the problem.
Bushes, Clintons, Landrieus, Tauzins, Cravins's…on down the line.
Besides, I see nothing conservative about Jeb Bush fighting against then-Rep. Jindal's bill to open up more of our nation's offshore waters for domestic energy exploration. Florida finally "compromised" to reduce the drilling moratorium to 125 miles off their coast. Cuba allowing exploration off their coast, 90 miles from Florida!
We don't need another Bush presidency.
Cajun, as I replied above, Floridians have historically been very afraid that an oil spill could damage their beaches and hurt the tourism industry — one of the main economic engines of the state. They similarly don't want offshore oil rigs appearing in the pictures of their beautiful beaches. Jeb's compromise was certainly conservative for Florida, and as I noted above, he's come out completely in support of offshore drilling now that he's out of office.
Jeb Bush? He may be the "more conservative" of the Bush family, but we don't live in a monarchy. The "entitled" inbred of our elected leaders is part of the problem.
Bushes, Clintons, Landrieus, Tauzins, Cravins's…on down the line.
Besides, I see nothing conservative about Jeb Bush fighting against then-Rep. Jindal's bill to open up more of our nation's offshore waters for domestic energy exploration. Florida finally "compromised" to reduce the drilling moratorium to 125 miles off their coast. Cuba allowing exploration off their coast, 90 miles from Florida!
We don't need another Bush presidency.
Cajun, as I replied above, Floridians have historically been very afraid that an oil spill could damage their beaches and hurt the tourism industry — one of the main economic engines of the state. They similarly don't want offshore oil rigs appearing in the pictures of their beautiful beaches. Jeb's compromise was certainly conservative for Florida, and as I noted above, he's come out completely in support of offshore drilling now that he's out of office.
[...] from these two polls? First, while many may groan at the idea, fellow Hayride blogger Ryan Booth probably isn’t off his rocker for suggesting that Jeb Bush could be a viable candidate. The Bush name apparently isn’t as poisonous as media narratives might have people believe, [...]
an oil spill is scary for the enviroment so everybody should be afraid not just them
an oil spill is scary for the enviroment so everybody should be afraid not just them
Having seen the illustrious Jeb! in action, and having watched his stewardship of Marco Rubio who proudly proclaimed AGAINST the Arizona immigration law almost at the same time that Crist jumped the shark, all I can say is HELL NO!
Having seen the illustrious Jeb! in action, and having watched his stewardship of Marco Rubio who proudly proclaimed AGAINST the Arizona immigration law almost at the same time that Crist jumped the shark, all I can say is HELL NO!
[...] while back, I made some waves on this site by promoting former Florida Governor Jeb Bush for President in 2012. As I predicted at the time, [...]
[...] it’s not the first time we’ve been linked by NRO; Ryan Booth’s piece last year on Jeb Bush as a 2012 favorite had that [...]