Right wing source: Why Bush Might Not Be Best Against Clinton

[wyldwolf]

Washington Examiner:

“In a general election, nominating Bush would neutralize one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest liabilities (the idea that she, too, is a figure from the past trying to ride her last name to power). Instead of having the clear contrast that would be possible if Republicans were to name a fresh candidate, the 2016 election would devolve into a proxy battle over whether Americans want to restore the Bush or Clinton presidencies. Whether the GOP likes it or not, that isn’t a matchup that favors Republicans.”

Looks like some in the GOP establishment are pushing back against Jeb.

[Agschmid]

1. I doubt he will be the nominee...

If this is anything like last time we will see a few people peak, and then fade into the background.

But we will see...

[FSogol]

4. I think the Kochs have already picked Scott Walker as the dopey, malleable puppet candidate, but will

promote Jeb as the elder-statesman, Cheney-esque VP candidate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Scott Walker puts zero fear in me./NT

[FSogol]

9. Same here. The :scared: is for how crappy the political discourse in America will

become.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. For all his flaws Jeb offers the Repugs the best chance...

For all his flaws Jeb offers the Repugs the best chance because he offers the possibility of mitigating GOP losses among Latinos, without which occurring they have no chance of winning.

[FSogol]

17. I doubt he could ever overcome the "Bush" negative. They are better with a mostly unknown

like Walker that they can bolster with multi-million dollar campaign ads. His campaign events will be completely controlled and he'll seldom speak to the General Public or reporters.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. Same here. Jeb, on the other hand, with having married a Mexican-American woman,

is fluent in Spanish, is still pretty much a threat - although I don't know how the Teapublicans will see him since they're diehard racists and xenophobes. On the other hand, these anti-American zealots will probably swallow their pride and vote for Jeb because they loathe Democrats more.

But Jeb can be popular with a-political Latinos, and that's what I fear most.

Any Democratic candidate would do wise to choose a Mexican-American as their running mate. I would advise they choose Secretary Julian Castro. He's Mexican-American, fluent in Spanish AND is a Texan. We might be able to get the Latino vote out in Texas and just might pull it off to make that State blue in 2016.

At any rate, choosing a Mexican-American as a running mate will ensure they get the majority (if not all) of the Latino vote and keep the GOP from getting that crucial 40% Latino vote that they need in order to win the White House.

[newfie11]

16. That's a terrifying thought

OMG!!!

[onehandle]

18. If he is, it's a clear sign that they've given up. See Bob Dole, 1996. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. and why Rand Paul is about to Announce....

I think they are going to get behind HIM....as they will see him as her only threat based on this attack tack alone...its all they have (and they are THAT desperate)!

[fadedrose]

6. I agree with you

Rand Paul is the least objectionable, not at all desirable, but the one with the least baggage to air.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. I think maybe Rand Paul shows distressing signs of intractability,

and there is too great a risk that his general nuttiness will show through whatever facade he tries to push.

You can be pretty sure the Big Money people will want someone they can trust to do as instructed.

[BeyondGeography]

3. "But I'm different," isn't a great tagline for a candidacy

They have reason to be concerned.

[madokie]

5. Who is surrounded but the same old war criminal as poppy and little boots

with some raygunner thrown in for good measure

[BeyondGeography]

10. Little Boots

[BlueCaliDem]

8. Yep. Restoring the Clinton presidency is FAR preferable to restoring G.W. Bush's presidency.

The successes of the Clinton presidency boosts SoS Clinton's popularity among Democrats and Liberals. Twenty-two MILLION new jobs, a 2.4% unemployment rate, no war, and the U.S. becoming very popular with the people throughout the world are just a few examples.

With John Ellis Bush: Duhbya. Nuff said.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. One small correction my friend

I don't believe unemployment ever dipped to 2.4% under Clinton. It did dip to 3.9% which is remarkable enough.

[BlueCaliDem]

19. I didn't think it was, either, but then I read this:

In the past 30 years, the unemployment rate was as high as 7.2 percent in November 1982 before dipping to a low of 3 percent in November 1987; the next bust resulted in 7.4 percent unemployment in March 1992 during President George H.W. Bush’s administration before a steady recovery to a record low unemployment of 2.1 percent in Sept. 2000 when President Bill Clinton was in office.

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent, following the near collapse of the financial services industry and a government bailout of $700 billion in Oct. 2008 because of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Barack Obama assumed office on Jan. 20, 2009 with the 7 percent rate, which continued to grow to 9.4 percent in August 2010, a three-decade high, and only started to slowly go down throughout 2011 to 8 percent in January 2012 and now to 7.8 percent in February.
http://www.ct5thdistrict.com/2012/03/22/fact-check-iii/

The numbers appear to be correct for President Obama.

[ffr]

11. A "fresh candidate" and rethug is a misnomer.

They could run the most despicable person on Earth and they'd still have their entire 23% base supporting that person. What they need is a centrist message to trick the 'undecided voters' and lots of lipstick for whatever criminal or future convict they plan to nominate.