The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Candidate for 2008: John Ellis Bush?Over at the National Review, David Freddoso discusses the possibility that, instead of giving the GOP an early nominee, the front-loaded primary schedule might lead to a brokered convention. Obviously, that’s the kind of thing that political geeks dream of. Day of floor-fights, dramatic votes, and the like – it’s almost enough to make me book some vacation time in patient expectation. But, for Republicans, it may well represent more than that – an opportunity.
So far, among the Republicans, no one’s made the sale. That’s true for me, personally. At the moment, I like McCain – but I have reservations about his age and his maverick tendencies. I admire Giuliani – but I’m not sure if he’d be acceptable to the Republican base and I’m concerned that there may be hidden scandals. I would support Fred Thompson, but his campaign has been kind of listless. I’m ambivalent towards Romney (too fake, too clean-cut) and I dislike Huckabee (I have a hard time believing that, in wartime, anyone could seriously support a candidate for the Presidency whose chief qualifications are that he lost a lot of weight and can quote the Bible real pretty) – but I’d support either of them against the Democrats. The other candidates don’t even cross my radar screen, save for Ron Paul who, as I have mentioned in the past, I despise with every fibre of my being. I think a lot of Republicans (swap the names and the reasons) are in more or less the same place.
But, there is another candidate out there – the perfect candidate for the Republican Party in 2008. The extremely popular former Governor of a major swing state. An articulate and principled conservative. Someone with a clean personal history who has displayed the qualities of a decisive leader in high office. He’s electorally demographically perfect as well – Catholic, Spanish-speaking, and with a Hispanic wife. The only problem is that his name is John Ellis Bush.
If Governor Jeb Bush of Florida was Governor John Ellis of Florida, the race for the Republican nomination would already be long over. But, alas, realities being what they are Bush’s name is now doubly an albatross. First, many would obviously have issues with the President being followed in office by his own brother. Second, of course, there is the fact that President Bush remains fairly unpopular. However, it’s December of 2007 at the moment and the Republican convention isn’t for eight months. Both of those issues might be dispensed with by then.
The first issue, obviously, can be dispensed with in 2008 altogether if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for President. Though Democrats are sufficiently venal to passionately denounce nepotism while offering up the wife of a former President as their own candidate for the Presidency, the only Americans stupid enough to fall for that argument are Democrats already.
The second may prove more tricky – but not impossible. Rasmussen, by far the most reliable polling company in recent years, has the President’s approval rating at 39%. With Iraq fading as an issue and a recession looking less and less likely, it’s quite possible that President Bush’s approval rating might be substantially higher by the summer of 2008. If it crosses into the mid-50’s (it’s worth recalling that both President Reagan and President Clinton’s ratings went up significantly during the final year of their term), the Bush name ceases to be a liability and, instead, becomes a rallying cry for Republicans.
Is any of this likely? No. I still think that the most likely GOP nominee is Rudy Giuliani. But, it’s at least remotely possible to imagine scenario where the Republicans emerge from the first or second ballot in Minneapolis and, amid the summer heat, one delegates whispers the name “Bush” to another and things just go from there.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Candidate for 2008: John Ellis Bush?:
Why don't we just appoint the Clinton's and Bushes as a dual monarchy that way we won't be forced to decide between various degree's of abject failure and failure abjected.
Plus, as the populace has had enough of this "thinking business" we can dispense with the pretense of informed voting and simply flip a coin... because that's how they do it in sports.
Posted by: A Great _______ | 2007-12-11 1:32:19 AM
Jeb Bush is every bit as much of a JOKE on illegal immigration as his brother and no conservative should even consider him. Thank God he's not running.
Posted by: Andrew C. | 2007-12-11 2:35:07 AM
Red team vs. blue team! Rah rah rah! How can my team win? Here's how the Republicans can win - nominate Ron Paul, the truly honorable, truly conservative Republican.
Posted by: Ray | 2007-12-11 3:05:06 AM
Mitt Romney is the man and he is not fake...just a gentleman so unusual in these times. As for his being too clean cut; a guy just can't help how he looks. I actually saw a picture of him doing outside work with his hair hanging loosely over his forehead. Truthfully, he didn't look to good that way....all sweaty and in need of a good shower. I think the criticisms of Romney are very superficial.
Posted by: Bette S | 2007-12-11 3:54:30 AM
This guy has no clue what he is talking aboot. The title alone tells you it is written by a moron.
Posted by: Doug | 2007-12-11 5:08:58 AM
The government has never been at war with Eurasia! The government has always been at war with Eastasia!
Posted by: Anthony C Pants | 2007-12-11 6:10:47 AM
Jeb Bush is a fine man and was an excellent Governor of Florida. Having said that, I don't think he has the intellectual depth like that of his father and brother. I must agree with Bette that Romney's the man.
Posted by: atric | 2007-12-11 8:12:10 AM
A Giuliani/Romney ticket will sweep the nation - and take the House with it, if not the Senate.
Roo Paul should be named ambassador to Tonga.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-11 8:50:33 AM
Throughout history those who want peace have always been hated by those who love war with "every fiber of their being."
Funny, though, the war-lovers are rarely the war-fighters.
Posted by: J.P. | 2007-12-11 9:31:52 AM
As a Canadian living in the USA, I am deeply concerned for our countries. Do not be fooled, NAFTA and other Globalization/Regionalization efforts will end up hurting Canada too.
I do, indeed, support Dr. Paul as the only hope for a return to what made The United States great- just that- the UNITED States. We were formed as a Republic. By all definitions we are now an empire. Empires do not persevere. I am deeply concerned for this country and the world. I would suggest attempting to read newspapers outside of the Western Hemisphere. The move towards Globalization is outlined in many official documents from the CFR, TLC, and the
Project for a New American Century Manfesto: Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century-(http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm) certainly one of the scariest documents I have ever read.
Yesterday the most popular news story in the world (virtually un-reported in the Western MSM) was that Iran stopped accepting US dollars for oil from China, Japan and other countries that hold more US currency than our own country does. What are China and Japan going to do with their immense US cash holdings, if they were to dump it on the open market, we would spiral into an economic depression that would make the 30's look like boom times. And whether you like it or not, the loony will fall with the US buck. The reality is quite scary.
Posted by: Chris Gencheff | 2007-12-11 3:38:35 PM
"The reality is quite scary."
You will fail by trying to scare people into supporting a fool like Roo Paul.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-11 4:09:47 PM
You are confusing Rupaul, a Drag Performer with Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul, one of the only truthful and most-educated members of the United States Congress.
It is not Dr. Paul's message that is scary, it is the prognostications outlined in the aforementioned and referenced document from PNAC.
Here is the grade 4 version:
If you are able to comprehend anything other than mono-syllabic drivel, I suggest you read the PNAC report. The Neo-conservative agenda is fulfilling their plans. Guess who is next? You'll have to read or wait for the cartoon to come out.
Posted by: Chris Gencheff | 2007-12-11 4:27:02 PM
I am NOT confusing the two Pauls. There is little difference between them - which is my point. :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-11 4:36:36 PM
Good luck to you.
If you were old enough to vote I might have continued.
Posted by: Chris Gencheff | 2007-12-11 4:59:25 PM
People, you must realise that obc is a Jew whose first loyalty is to Israel. Not unlike David Horowitz,
"Ron Paul – the only Libertarian in Congress – is a disgrace. He has waged a war against America’s war on terror, in lockstep with the left, and against the state of Israel, the frontline democracy in this war."
obc believes that anyone who eschews the "US-Israeli alliance" to disseminate "democracy and liberty," must be fans of Hitler and the Waffen-SS..." especially the most evil, Jews for Ron Paul. As Paul Gottfried said, when J4RP were condemning the Republican Jewish Coalition for excluding Paul from the RJC’s Presidential Candidates’ Forum, "Why would you expect the RJC to behave any differently from the way it does? Like the NAACP, the Armenian Assembly of America, and La Raza, it is a group of ethnic whiners organized to influence foreign and domestic policies."
Ditto Oswald, simply another in a long line of ethnic whiners.
Posted by: Dj | 2007-12-11 5:26:03 PM
blah, blah, blah, says the racist among us.
Beat you to it once again, atric! :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-11 6:45:13 PM
And remember - those Jeeeeeeeeews have no right to speak in DJ's world.
Brown-shirted thugs are the only ones accorded free speech is his lop-sided world.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-11 6:48:03 PM
obc -Brown-shirted thugs are the only ones accorded free speech is his lop-sided world.
And neo-cons, or should I use the correct term neo-Trotskyites, in yours.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-12-11 6:57:23 PM
O'Gotcha finally shows his true colours. :)
Not that I'm surprised. I knew it all along.
You see, O'Gotcha posted here once before - under a different nic.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-11 7:01:41 PM
Not posting as much on this blog as I used to but sometimes still visit.
"You see, O'Gotcha posted here once before - under a different nic."
I have wondered the same thing - I presume you mean SAPN, hmmm?
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-12-11 7:30:10 PM
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-11 7:35:40 PM
I have wondered the same thing - I presume you mean SAPN, hmmm?
Wrong. Try again
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-12-11 7:43:10 PM
How can O'REILLY be an anti-Semite, when you constantly inform us that Trotsky et al were not really Jews? According to you they were atheistic leftoids. Which is it oh great hypocritoid? :)
Posted by: DJ | 2007-12-12 4:58:18 PM
The truth is finally emerging about the loon Roo Paul:
"On the paper trail with Ron Paul"
Texas presidential candidate with libertarian views has taken controversial positions on issues from immigration to AIDS
WASHINGTON — Texas Rep. Ron Paul's fervent opposition to the Iraq war and his denunciations of Big Government have made him the Internet darling of the 2008 presidential campaign and have earned him more than $10 million in contributions.
Less known to Paul's many Internet-driven supporters are earlier writings and speeches by the Lake Jackson Republican in which he made incendiary comments about African-Americans, immigration, AIDS patients and alleged victims of sexual harassment.
"Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts?" Paul wrote in a 1988 book, Freedom Under Siege.
In 1997, Paul took issue with the concept of global warming, arguing "the temperatures are getting cooler, on the average."
Ten years earlier, in 1987, he wrote that the United States should not have a national immigration policy and "should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work."
While some supporters say Paul's controversial views would not affect their support for his presidential run, some academics begged to differ.
Paul, a 10-term congressman who was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for president, has emerged from the rear of the 2008 presidential pack to reach double digits in some polls in New Hampshire, the first state to hold a presidential primary. The early front-runners have avoided clashing with him because they did not see him as a threat to win the nomination.
But if Paul continues to gain in the polls, "the more likely that some of his off-the-wall views will get known," said Bruce Buchanan, a University of Texas political science professor.
"Paul, a 10-term congressman who was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for president, has emerged from the rear"
Yup! Emerged from the "rear" is exactly where he came from.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-13 6:08:30 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.