George W. Bush’s former chief of staff: “We have a responsibility to make sure Jeb runs

Via BuzzFeed, a vignette from the big Bushworld confab over the weekend to honor Bush 41. Imagine if the “tea-party era” in Republican politics, which began after eight years of Dubya and the nomination of John McCain, produced Mitt Romney and then Jeb Bush as presidential nominees.

I’m treating the prospect of another Bush nomination as a test of whether the Republican grassroots, realistically, has any influence at all over who their party chooses. Say what you will about O but his win over Hillary six years ago proved that it’s still possible for the establishment favorite to be beaten in a Democratic primary. When was the last time that happened on our side? If a power complex exists within the party capable of elevating a guy to the nomination (a) who hasn’t run a campaign in 12 years, (b) who’s suspicious to the party’s own base, and (c) whose surname is a heavy liability everywhere in the country except within that power complex, in what way does any sort of conservative activism — at the national level at least — matter?

“If Mitt Romney had had the Jeb package,” said tireless Romney 2012 surrogate John Sununu, “we would have won in 2012.” Even if Jeb doesn’t run, though, or — miraculously — ends up getting beat in the primaries by a righty insurgent, how many former Bush advisors will end up as part of the eventual nominee’s campaign? It may be possible to avoid having another Bush on the ticket. I’m not sure it’s possible to have a new Republican administration that keeps Bushworld out of the White House. Here’s WaPo on the “credentials caucus,” the race among 2016 Republican hopefuls to recruit policy advisors before the primaries start hopping:

Actual quote: “On foreign policy especially, the potential candidates are still learning. A frequent counselor is Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the GOP’s 2008 nominee.” I’m guessing Cruz isn’t one of them, although the fact that Cruz is hiring Rumsfeld alums means the Cruz/Paul contrast on foreign policy next year will be even sharper than we thought. Maybe that’s Rand’s best play — presenting himself as an alternative not just to Republican orthodoxy generally but to the Bush legacy specifically. Is that too risky in a Republican primary, though, even five years after the tea party emerged? The one virtue of a new Bush candidacy is that it’d be a fascinating temperature check of GOPers about Dubya’s legacy. Are they, after flirtations with libertarianism and isolationism, nonetheless prepared to offer Bush 3.0 to the country? Can the party’s coalition survive that?

The one really obvious move Jeb could make to lighten some of the baggage he’s carrying and present himself to voters as distinctly his own man would be to criticize the Iraq war, even to the point of saying that it never should have happened. I doubt he’s willing to do it, though, and even if he was, he’s on record as recently as last year as saying he thinks people will eventually stop seeing the war as a mistake. Rand’s been tiptoeing away from dad’s views for the past three years and people are still suspicious of his true intentions. Even if Jeb tried the same move vis-a-vis Dubya’s foreign policy, how likely is it he could convince people at this point that he’d be different? And even if he did, how excited would Bushworld be about him then?

Say what you will about O but his win over Hillary six years ago proved that it’s still possible for the establishment favorite to be beaten in a Democratic primary
*************************************************
I don’t buy that. Hillary did not have 100% Dem Establishment approval. She had baggage, a gender gap with men, and polls showing that she was not likely to win over any of the likely GOPe candidates.

It appeared to me that a large number of their establishment decided to go with a potential winner (regardless of experience)instead of a sure loser. Then they proceeded on a successful propoganda campaign/illusion to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.

Dubya should never have been President. The game plan drawn up in 1992 was for Jeb to win the Florida governorship in 1994, and serve a full term, before being nominated for the Presidency in 2000. But Dubya won his election in Texas, and had a full term under his belt, while Jeb was only in the second year of his first term, as Jeb had lost to Lawton Chiles in 1994, by a very narrow margin (considering this was Florida, probably an honest count would have tipped the election to Jeb).

Jeb is WAY smarter than Dubya, and a whole lot more serious. Not to say Dubya is not himself quite intelligent, just that Jeb is both quicker and more composed in his thinking.

But the moment has passed. The opportunity that existed in 2000 no longer applies, and the demographics have simply moved on beyond any stepping back in time.

On a further note, Mitt Romney is no doubt a very good man, in all respects just the kind of person who is what is known as “pillar of the community”, circumspect and devoted to family, and a highly successful businessman to boot. And all this in spite of the whispering campaign run against him by a “fellow” Mormon, Harry Reid. But he is no conservative, and in fact, in the instance of Obamacare, elsewhere known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010”, Romney’s instincts, and those of Jeb Bush’s, would be to mend it, not end it.

Obamacare is a bigger disaster for the nation as a whole than even the adoption of the 18th Amendment, which introduced Prohibition as a national policy. And even though Prohibition was once “the law of the land”, it WAS repealed, a fact that seems to be lost on many who consider themselves to “moderates”, occupying some mushy-headed position they consider to be “the middle”. Some things, you just cannot split the difference on, and a compulsory national health services delivery program is one of them.

Whether Romney or Jeb Bush, were either to be the nominee, should manage to be elected or not, the conservative base would not be served in any case. Because whoever the Democrats put up (and Herself, Madame Benghazi, the Cold & Joyless, is no sure bet at this point), would be adamant about not changing Obamacare except by executive fiat, being unwilling to submit the current law to ANY legislative review, further skewing the unconstitutional nature of how that law is now administered.

Policy is a much different thing than the law. We still have the mechanism in place for registering with the military draft (Selective Service), and there are certain penalties for failure to register, but no fines or prison time is involved. The draft itself is NOT active, as a matter of policy, though the law still exists.

In a parallel way, the participation in some kind of comprehensive medical coverage plan could be put on a voluntary basis, with only limited care available to those who do not participate in the active enrollment, as now exists for emergency room access. Sure, that places some burden upon the locality that sustains the emergency room facilities, but for far less than the costs imposed upon the US Treasury and the current and existing participants in insured coverage under Obamacare. This cost to the local emergency rooms could then be addressed separately, and accorded equitable treatment of reimbursement.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.