Jeb Bush & the political dynasty issue

Politics & Elections
1

First & foremost, this is an issue that will absolutely bog down Hillary as well if & when she decides to run, though I can’t imagine it being as much of a drag in her case given that most people - Hell, even most Republicans - look back on the Clinton years fondly in a way that nobody affords to the terms of either HW Bush or W.

That said, Jeb Bush has all but announced that he is going to run for President in '16, and as much as I hate jumping onto the 2016 speculation bandwagon this early - personally, these discussions will be much more amenable to me come October or so - I figure I should bring up the political dynasty issue now because (by all accounts) Jeb is presumably the GOP frontrunner heading into the impending Republican primaries.

To which I say, to what extent - if any - do you believe that the political dynasty issue will drag on a potential Bush (& Clinton, for that matter) presidential run?

For the life of me, I just can’t imagine that the US electorate would be gung-ho about the idea of another Bush in the White House. Hell, even in the case of Bush Sr. - who isn’t as universally reviled as W - nobody looks back on his Presidency with fondness per se; rather, most responses afforded to the elder Bush usually fall along the lines of “well, he wasn’t as awful as his son.” That isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement.

It just seems to me that the dynasty issue will drag down Jeb far more than Hillary, if for nothing else than the fact that neither of the prior Bush presidencies are accorded any widespread reverence. Presumably, all Hillary would have to do in order to hammer the point home would be to run ads of Jeb’s brother & father under the tagline of “do you want four more years of Bush?”

Still, the voters have shown before that the issue of political dynasties is nonexistent in other arenas. The Roosevelt’s, Kennedy’s, Pryor’s, and so forth have certainly proven that to be the case in other political contexts, so maybe I’m entirely off base.

How much of a drag on Jeb (& Hillary) do you expect the political dynasty issue to be?

2

My gut feel is that for Bush, it will be a significant factor. Maybe just to energize the base “do you ***really ***want 4 more years of Bush?” An>"d less influencing the Republican core. I still think it will negatively affect the undecided. Again my wag is that this would be less of a factor for Hillary, and absolutely nothing to base that on.

Personally, I think Hillary’s age will be a greater negative. And fully expect a resurrection of the previous attacks of “I’m okay with Hillary, but I just can’t stand her laugh.” (repeated ad nasueum by my father.)

3

[snipped]

I would have to point out that I question how the current Republican base will see Jeb as one of their own. Jeb Disagrees with the Tea Party on immigration and education.

If the typical happens and Jeb has to go hard right in the primaries to be the candidate by tossing immigrants under the bus I see him ending like Romney did in 2012.

4

The elder Bush was not a bad President, beyond being a Republican. :slight_smile: I do, however, find it highly amusing that the Reaganites like to demonstrate how horrible Carter was by his defeat by Reagan, and ignore Bush’s defeat by Clinton.

That said, should the election come down to Bush vs. Clinton, I’m going to have a very hard time keeping from voting for Ralph Nader, or possibly Pat Buchanan.

5

I notice though that Jeb isn’t backing down on his positions. THat’s actually smart. His only chance to win a general election is to seem like a different kind of Republican. Basically sound like John Huntsman while carrying the Bush name.

But yeah, the name hurts and it’s already reflected in the polls.

6

Not actually smart for the primaries though, (smart as in “knowing your audience”) the last candidate that did not back down from his moderate positions was Jon Huntsman, who was also a moderate on immigration issues.

Did not last long in the run.

7

Bush will have two things Huntsman didn’t have: money and a name that commands respect among Republicans who aren’t Tea Party.

Plus I don’t get the impression Bush NEEDS this. So why sell out?

8

The Bush legacy will hurt Jeb among undecideds and moderates, but not among the faithful. After all, while the George W. Bush administration may have been a failure, it isn’t because of anything he did (it couldn’t be, right?), and so they’d happily do all the same things over again.

9

Of course not.

It was Obama’s fault. :wink:

10

Odd that no one mentions age when discussing Romney, despite him having almost a year on Hillary.

11

I heard from a number of pundits that Romney (based on quotes from “insiders”) is determined to run “to the right of” Bush, which, come to think of it, is soooo Romneyesque. He may craft his policies to to be slightly to the right of Bush so he can satisfy the base but not so far that he alienates the mainstream.

Which particular policies, and what shifting his stance might mean in policy terms, he won’t care about in the least.

12

Mainly Romney will go to the right on Common Core and immigration. But that’s why what you’ve DONE matters more than what you SAY. Jeb was one of the most conservative governors in the country. Romney one of the most liberal, at least for a Republican. There’s just no way Romney can credibly get to Bush’s right. The only reason ANYONE can get to Bush’s right is if they are Senators who have never had to govern in the real world. Even Walker isn’t as right-wing as Bush in terms of how he’s actually governed.

13

“Credibly” in in the eye of the beholder. Romney has a remarkable talent of dancing around issues, denying the past and reality, and discerning what he should believe TODAY as opposed to yesterday or tomorrow.

Personally, though, I don’t think he has a chance. Republicans are tired of him and Bush will blow right by him.

I do agree though, that unless Bush comes up with policy solutions that seem incredibly smart to people on both sides, he will just be “another Bush” come the general election.

I’m not a fan of Hilary either, myself. I’m still pissed that she never dumped Bill, which in my eyes makes her about the most cynical opportunist I can think of. But still, better than Bush, and WAY better than most any other likely Republican candidates.

14

So, the public objection would not be to political dynasties as such, but to this particular one’s track record?

15

[shrug] Who NEEDS to be POTUS? OK, Nixon did, but I can’t think of any others.

16

If one has to tie themselves into knots to overcome past positions, then a candidate probably wants the job too much.

17

How can a presidential candidate run on any position on Common Core? The President is part of the federal government, not the states.

18

Well yeah, but Carter was beaten by the Bad News Bears and Bush was defeated by the 1927 Yankees. Bill Clinton is arguably the best campaigner I’ve seen in my life, and I’ve gone through Presidential elections since Harry Truman was in office.

19

Jeb Bush is probably the only Republican who’s hoping Hillary Clinton will run. If she’s his opponent, it neutralizes a good amount of the “dynasty” issue. It’ll still be there - the legacy of the last Bush administration is a lot worse than the legacy of the last Clinton administration. But at least with another Clinton running, the Democrats won’t be able to beat the dynasty drum as loudly.

20

Still, you know, bully-pulpit.