The Case for Jeb! in 2008 Part I
By PEER Review Posted in User Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Jeb! 2008: Part I
This piece is based on the realities of election strategy, not recent trends or polls. In Part I, I discuss possible GOP Primary candidates and one General Election opponent in particular. In Part II my thoughts on Jeb. Thanks for reading. Leave comments if you have thoughts on the strength of any candidates mentioned.
The Case for Jeb in 2008 - Part I
Florida Governor Jeb Bush has certainly been clear regarding his intentions for President in 2008. "No thank you," he says. But for Republicans and conservatives everywhere, this may not be acceptable. Here are a few reasons why.Many Republicans, pundits and insiders are asking themselves, if not Jeb then who? There are plenty of options: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Arizona Senator John McCain, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, Former New York City Mayor Rudi Giuliani, New York Governor George Pataki, Colorado Governor Bill Owens, and Virginia Senator George Allen among others.
All of these candidates have positive traits and sizeable support. Together they have shaped the past five years of American and Republican policy. But any political hack could give a list of reasons not to vote for any member this group. Here's a short glimpse of how it goes.
Condoleezza Rice is a single woman with zero elective experience. There is nothing wrong with being single, or an unelected official, unless you are running for President. If she went home and replaced Arnold Schwarzenegger as the first black female governor of California, then she could return as a contender for President.
Bill Frist is a Washington D.C. insider who, in my opinion, has been a lackluster leader in the U.S. Senate. His southern roots are as strong as Al Gore's in 2000-i.e. given the right set of circumstances and a solid candidate on the left, it's possible he could lose his own state. To be a viable candidate he must make great strides in the public perception of his leadership and that is going to be difficult with the upcoming Supreme Court nomination battle.
John McCain is a joke to party loyalists. He is a centrist, which may help in the general election, but not the primary. His recent indiscretions include participation with the Gang of 14 and campaign finance reform. This doesn't play well with the base or the pajama hadin. Should McCain get a serious look at the presidency against a credible Democratic candidate (if that's even possible), his S&L scandals and rocky history would surely resurface with the MSM. He will be loved by the press during the GOP primary, then the gloves will be off.
Rick Santorum is an ultraconservative Senator who alienates moderates. He will face a strong reelection challenge, and little is known about him outside his state of Pennsylvania. With the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation battles, his in-state challenges, and a growing family, he will have little time to create any positive spin for a presidential campaign.
Rudy Giuliani is always mentioned as a favorite and a leader in the polls, but his pro-choice and socially liberal positions may get in the way. If he can't court the right wing in the primary, then who is going to vote for him? On some issues (e.g., abortion, gay marriage) there is little difference between him and Clinton Democrats. Lots of "experts" and insiders would say he would run right and avoid these positions in the primary. That's just pure fantasy and here's why--without an incumbent candidate (like Vice President Dick Cheney) the primary becomes a free for all, a cage match with no holds barred. Every candidate in the primary will be sure to bring up the former Mayor's pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage positions every time they step in front of a microphone.
If by some chance Giuliani won the GOP nomination, why would a woman choose him over Hillary? What's the difference on the salient issues to females? It's too early for polls to give us an idea of how a race between these two would effect women, but I assure you, political professionals, not pundits, are thinking about this as I write.
Conservatives were talking hard about George Pataki several months ago, but his star is dimming as of late. If he does jump in the race consider this-as the Republican Governor of New York he actually supported tax increases after campaigning to reform NY politics. That's more of the same; and it's not the kind of governing record primary voters look for when selecting a candidate.
For many of you, Bill Owens will bring the following question: "Bill who?" The current Governor of Colorado is a conservative who does what he says. He has worked to cut taxes, reduce the size of government, and introduce real choice in education. Unfortunately, nobody knows him.
Virginia Senator George Allen is a solid conservative with tons of name recognition on the east coast and parts of the south, but not nationally. Plus, he's a Senator and they have not been successful lately.
Other potential candidates include, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
With the exception of Rice, Giuliani and McCain (whose additional drawbacks are noted above) they all share one big and expensive problem-name ID in mainstream America. Name ID is absolutely essential to winning swing voters and elections.
The GOP and motivated consultants must raise and spend extra money to overcome a lack of name recognition before they can effectively attack the opponent. Each of these candidates may try, and some will last longer than others, but one big reason exists why none of these candidates will measure up--Senator Hillary Clinton.
For Republicans and conservatives alike Senator Clinton represents the perfect storm in a political opponent.
She is a married mother with governing experience. She is a wife of one of the most popular presidents in American history. She fields enough political ties to pull influence city council races in America's major liberal cities. She has contributed to several major congressional races and she will expect reciprocity. Senator Clinton has multiple 527's, and she began her Senate/Presidential bid (unofficially) the day after Senator Kerry conceded. She has money in the bank and can easily raise the $300+ million that may be required to win the presidency in today's world of politics.
There is little doubt the extreme left loves Senator Clinton and would trust her to defend liberal policy. She could declare herself a born again conservative on national television and the left wing would believe it to be strategy. In fact, Hillary is appearing to move to the center of American politics with her recent speeches on abortion and her public appearances with Frist, Gingrich, McCain, Lindsey Graham and other GOP notables. Additionally, her Senate voting record shows her moving toward the right on questions of defense.
On Election Day more women will vote for Clinton than against her; she will probably win the African American vote 8-2 or better; and she can guarantee a huge turnout at the polls. She has a husband who just happens to be a very popular and very recent ex-president who will campaign for her tirelessly. Plus, and this is a big plus, she has name ID that extends beyond American borders--everybody knows Hillary Clinton.
---------------------
Come back for The Case for Jeb! in 2008 - Part II
Mr. C
GOVs Owens (CO), Pawlenty (MN), Sanford (SC), and Bush (FL) as people to keep an eye on. They all have strong fiscal conservative credentials and are socially conservative (pro-life, anti-same-sex marriage). Yet, except for Bush, they can all run as outsiders and push fixing the budget without tax hikes as their main platform. Each has a negative or two, but those are who I'm watching.
And if you're really a news junkie, make sure to check out Ruffini's Presidential wire that tracks blogs and the MSM for which 2008 contenders are getting the most attention.
Comment 1 - You are correct, name id is not required to gain national prominence, but essential for winning, which none of the people you mention actually did.
Comment 2 - I agree, we should be watching sitting governors, preferably southern, for potential alternative candidates. One name you left off and I personally like is Haley Barbour.
And Ruffini's tracker is neat, but a little cumbersome this far out. When the list narrows it will be very helpful.
Thanks for the comments.
GOVs yes. South, maybe. We don't need a Southerner to win most (or even all) Southern states. In Owens vs. Mrs. Clinton, I think Owens takes every Southern state except FL on a bad day.
I think Bush is a good choice because he solidifies the R movement in FL among other things.
I think Pawlenty is from the only swing region (the midwest) and is GOV of a state we lost by 3%, which neighbors WI (lost by 1%) and IA (won by 1%). Despite the area (along with OH and MI) shrinking over time, there are still 27 EVs in those three states.
Owens helps with CO which is moving left, but glacially. And puts a Western face on the ticket which is a good thing in my mind as AZ, NM, NV, and CO are growing and becoming more competitive (i.e. less Republican).
Sanford, I admit, I mainly like because he brought two pigs "Pork" and "Barrel" to the state legislature to shame the lawmakers into spending less pork.
No. Jeb Bush is definately not a good choice.
Think Republicans, think. We have to have someone with a reputation untainted by the supposed election "mishaps" in 00 and 04. We need someone with the obvious moral superiority to stamp the Left into the ground.
I'm not talking about a soap box or pulpit, I'm talking about a mountain. A moral mountain to crush the whiners on the left.
Think of what GW could have done without the wimpy, crybaby opposition that the Left has forced him to endure from day one.
"He stole the election" whines Michael Moore and his multi-millionare commie buddies.
No, I think Jeb should leave the race for someone who's moral high ground is unquestioned and uncontestable.
We control all three branches of governemnt. We are pushing back the Left. We need to stay the course.
We're taking the Left's voice. Now we need to take their choice.
It is inconcievable that the 3 of the 4 best Republicans that could be put forward as a choice for President come from the same family, and I am guessing that a lot of Americans think the same way I do on this..
When working with companies that have national aspirations, I always laugh at companies where some CEO's brother or cousin is the head of sales or the head of technology - "you mean that you scoured the country for the best talent for this position and... low and behold it was your brother?" Always a warning signal.
"It is inconcievable that the 3 of the 4 best Republicans that could be put forward as a choice for President come from the same family."
I agree. The problem is that if I could only have one Bush, it would be Jeb. He is better than his brother and his father. If he hadn't lost in 1992, we would be in his second term right now. I don't like the idea of discriminating against him just because of his name any more than the other way around.
His name is a negative. He has many, many positives that must be weighed against that. He is a strong conservative, popular in the swing state. He is a two term GOV. He is married to a Hispanic lady with Hispanic children and he speaks Spanish. He is Catholic. And he guarantees FL goes R. That is a massive resume without getting into his actual accomplishments including major school choice reforms. It is a lot to throw out just because of his name.
Yes, we need to stay the course.
President Bush has pushed hard on taxes. That means noo tax hikers. That eliminates some Republican governors.
President Bush has fought hard on life issues. That means no social liberals. That eliminates Rice and Giuliani.
President Bush expanded and brought out the base in 2004. That means no base destroyers. That eliminates McCain and Frist.
So who's left? Governor Bush, and some other governors nobody's heard of.
That's why Bush would be my #1 choice right now, easily, if he were to run. Without him, I just don't know.
Nominating Jeb would be among the biggest mistakes the Republican party could make. He'd probably win a primary, but he would lose to pretty much anyone the Democrats could nominate.
He just has too much baggage to be able to conduct a campaign on the issues he wants. The campaign will become about his brother, and his name, and the 2000 election and it he will lose. Plus while the Shiavo thing might have helped him in some conservative circles, it will not help in the general election.
The Republicans are probably going to lose this election, Americans just don't like leaving one party in power that long. Still, we should show up with someone who has a chance.
If it weren't Sen. Clinton far ahead on the Democratic side, I'd agree that the Bush name would be a distraction.
But if Gov. Bush enters, then the race will quickly shape up to be Bush v. Clinton II, and will become fodder for late night talk show jokes, instead of a one-sided smear.
is now posted. check it out in the diary entries. Many of the prescient points made in these comments are covered in part two.
I briefly, and generally, make the case for Jeb if Hillary is the D nominee. If, by chance, Hillary were not the nominee, then I would definitely see the merit in nominating another Republican (Owens, Barbour, Sanford).
The important thing to remember is no matter how much you like or dislike a candidate, the basic paradox of elections is they come down to money and name id. If it's a Clinton, then it has to be a Bush on the other side. If it's not a Clinton, then it's anybody's ball game.
Thanks for the comments and posts. Knowing we have a knowledgeable crowd here at Red State will encourage me to post more.
I must raise this question: who outside of New England and political circles knew the names of John Kerry and Howard Dean? Who outside of South Carolina knew John Edwards? And yet these men had no trouble rising to national promenance in 2004.
Your premese that a Republican candidate for president needs to be widely known, at least before the primaries, is absurd. Firstly, anyone the MSM promotes and talks about ad nausium; i.e. John McCain or Rudy Guiliani, is not the person we want. Secondly, the people who vote in primaries are generally well-informed about politics and will catch the low-level, base-targeted advertising of the various candidates and be able to make a final decision. Finally, any presidental nominee has months to build a name for himself around the coutry through advertising and campaign stops, so if he or she doesn't have national recognition right now, they will by November 2005.
We shouldn't choose someone with a big name who is on the news all the time. We should choose, not the man who can win, but the right man for the job, a candidate with a solid conservative record, the experience and will to govern, and the backbone to stand up to the Democrats and take the idealogical fight to them. From there, when we have this candidate, we set out to win the election.
Personally, I think Jeb is an excellent choice, but a new, unknown, fresh face and voice for the party and the country is what I think has the best chance for success in 2008. So you political hacks, start searching for your guy!