And I would offer that the tendency to build those kinds of team indicates the TRUE personality of the Bushes (and particularly Jeb). The mild-mannered thing is a façade (albeit probably not a conscious one - it’s the way they were raised).
Jeb ran roughshod over the Legislature in Florida. Granted he had some tools available to him (like the line-item veto) that the POTUS doesn’t have and it’ll be interesting to see how that works for him at a national level should he get elected.
It’s not a facade, it’s just that campaigning is a lot like sports. A lot of mild mannered guys outside the ring, or the gridiron, or whatever, turn killer once they get into competition. It’s the oldest canard in sports writing: “That mean guy on the field who gnaws on the quarterback’s leg, he’s so humble and nice off the field!”
As for Jeb on actual governing, Republicans automatically have it easier due to some structural differences: first, the Democratic Party has a bigger tent, so a Republican President can often get legislation passed even if the GOP doesn’t control Congress. Just form ad hoc coalitions with Blue Dogs and Republicans. Second, there are more red states than blue states, so the Senate always has a natural conservative majority even when Democrats control it. Or at least there are plenty of Democrats who have to keep one eye on public opinion back home. GWB was able to work even with a Democratic Congress, and Jeb is a much more skilled politician than GWB is.
The difference being that the guy on the field spends maybe 4 hours a week at most being the “mean” one. A politician spends a much larger percentage of his time (and for much greater impact) doing politics. If you’re a nice guy at meet-and-greets and a ruthless politico in actual policy sessions, which one should voters be concerned about?
I will offer that another tool Jeb had in Florida was term limits. He was always playing against freshmen and sophomores looking to the next level.
Campaigns and governing aren’t really the same. The Bushes have always been much nicer at governing than at campaigning. All three Bushes in public office have worked well with Democrats most of the time.
Walker’s support in Iowa has jumped considerably:
Got to think he’s the early favorite to win the first caucus.
Because Republicans like quitters.
I’d like to see some evidence of that in Jeb’s case. As I recall, he was working with a significant Republican majority for most of his time as Governor, but I could be mistaken and it doesn’t appear to be the kind of thing that’s easy to find.
The nomination race is over. Jeb Bush is the nominee.
Waaaaay too soon to say that.
An interesting Politico piece on then-Gov. Jeb Bush and the Terri Schiavo case: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/jeb-bush-terri-schiavo-114730.html#.VM5rGmQbCV9
At least one local talk radio host has stated that Jeb Bush is a liberal.
I think not. The nominee is going to be someone that the big money Republicans can stomach. This rules out virtually everyone but Christie and Bush. Forget about anyone with Tea Party ties. I doubt they’ll take a chance on Christie and whatever other scandals lie beneath the surface. So it’s Bush, guaranteed.
I agree with that analysis. I will also say that Jeb is the one GOP possible that I could potentially stomach. I wouldn’t be happy about it, but it wouldn’t necessarily be devastating for the country. He’s more his dad than his brother.
I said it before long ago, and I’ll say it again:
Scott Walker will be a contender.
I think the qualities that make you rise to the top in Iowa a year before the caucus are not the qualities that the party is looking for. Sure, he checks all the “don’t raise a penny of tax under any circumstance” box, sure, he has the anti-union cred. Sure, he sold his soul to the Kochs. But he’s too close to the Tea side of the party to get nominated.
No. Iowa is a really bad bell-weather state. I don’t know why the parties put up with them anymore honestly.
I didn’t say he would get the nomination, did I? I said he will be a contender. And a serious one at that. Writing him off this soon is foolish.
Everyone on these boards scoffed 5 years ago when I suggested Paul Ryan would be on the ticket in 2012.
He could absolutely get the veep spot, which is what I think he’s really running for.
What are you basing that on exactly? How does someone run with that intention? And why spend time and money running for POTUS when it’s not the job you actually want?
I’ve read a couple of articles articulating how the best shot the GOP has in '16 is a midwestern governor. A Kasich/Walker or Wlaker/Kasich ticket might be the way to go. Especially if they can carry both home states. But I don’t thnk either is going to run for the VP position first.
Some people run knowing they have little chance of the nomination to position themselves for the following election, but yeah, I doubt many run hoping to be vp.
Outside of Jeb, I think Walker has the best chance of being the nominee.
Money talks. Bush has the money and nobody else is going to come close. Some are running out of delusions of adequacy, like Paul and Cruz, and some, like Pawlenty in 2012, know their only prayer is to get the veep nod. I think Walker’s smart enough that he just can’t compete with the Bush money machine.