When Indiana congressman Mike Pence decided to announce recently that he wasn’t going to run for the Republican nomination for president — but possibly for governor of his state — you would have thought, from the reaction in some quarters, that he had committed the ultimate act of betrayal. At least one senior longtime Republican political aide thought he had somehow abandoned his principles — and his country — by not taking a chance on the presidential race. Folks who were behind drafting him for president were in a deep funk. “Seriously, who else do we have?” one asked me. “Unless something miraculous happens and we get an unexpected gift candidate.”
Another GOP stalwart agreed: “Sad to say, but at a time when we need someone with guts like Reagan in ’76 challenging an incumbent president of his own party, or Rubio staying in the Florida Senate race when he was 40 points down to Crist, we get political calculation and personal ambition.” Poor Mike Pence! After all, the congressman has young kids and other options, and the presidency was a gamble.
Advertisement
While I appreciate these hard-working political veterans’ early assessments and their efforts to draft fresh candidates, I think they’re down way too early. It’s a big country. Some candidates are ready and willing to run. Others have very familiar names.
One of the latter happens to be named Bush. Later this month on MSNBC, host Chris Matthews will host a special presenting Bill Clinton as “President of the World,” which will discuss his global charity work since leaving office. In that spirit, consider this my pitch for a special on Fox News: “Jeb Bush, Governor of the Country,” a model of conservative leadership in and out of office. In his post-gubernatorial life, the former chief executive of Florida — a bit of a policy wonk and an activist on education — has been working with school officials, businessmen, and policymakers to translate his Florida achievement into progress for our schools nationwide.
At National Review, we currently have a cover story on the man, calling him a “can-do conservative reformer.” That applies to his time as governor as well as his time since he left office in 2007. Education reform is a signature issue and passion of his. And as John J. Miller recounts in his piece for NR, Bush led Florida from the bottom of the states in education rankings to the top five. “Taxes and regulation are important, but long-term prosperity is all about the quality of education,” he tells my colleague. On his multi-pronged, difficult approach, one education expert comments: “It shows that compassion is not about how much money you spend but about the results you get — and these are great results.” Conservatism in action. Conservatism with results.
Now Jeb Bush isn’t quite in the willing mode at the moment when it comes to a presidential run. Although I know at least one member of his family who’s encouraging of the idea, his mother, the former first lady, recently mused that the American people may be “Bushed out” on the presidential level.
But the truth of the matter is, in conversations with folks from Washington and grassroots activists, his name keeps coming up. “If only,” they’ll say. If only his name weren’t Bush. A third president Bush would just be overkill. It’s an anti-elitism thing. It’s supposedly a fatigue thing. But even George W. Bush is more popular than he was upon leaving office. He’s a bestselling author: As Sarah Palin’s detractors love to point out, he even kept her second book, America by Heart, from the top slot on the New York Times bestseller list spot for weeks with his Decision Points.
See my comment on Jeb Bush under Rich's column about him.
I don't want people running for president to have education as their major reform, unless it's to get rid of the Department of Education and encourage states to have voucher programs. I want the federal government OUT of education.
I want candidates who are about tax reform and reduction, lowering regulation on business, privatizing our entitlement programs, reversing the trend to socialism, recognition of who the enemies of liberty are and who our friends are and calling them that, about American exceptionalism, in short, candidates who are "not Obama".
Sarah Palin anyone?
Lets see, George HW Bush was elected as the conservative continuation of Ronald Reagan. Didn't quite work out that way.
George W Bush was elected as the conservative alternative to John McCain. Might still be true, but being to the right of McCain is not much more difficult then being to the right of Obama, and Bush certainly didn't spend like a conservative.
While it isn't fair to tar one person with the sins of another, I think ole Babs might be right about Bush fatigue.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 3 times, have me committed to the nearest mental hospital. Its been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Sorry, not this time.
In NRO's recent week-long cannonization of Ronald Reagan & current cannonization of Jeb Bush, should it not be pointed out that not so long ago Jeb Bush was quoted as saying that "the era of Reagan is over."
Again, 2012 will be about the Reaganites versus the Bush Dynasty.
A Presidential run is done for two reasons. One for the desire to be the free leader of the world. Two, to raise a politican's ego and to raise his name ID, so that s/he can sell more books, get booked as a pundit or form a political organization capable of getting donors. Both could be called pragmatic in their own ways. But Jeb Bush fits neither catergory, everyone knows who he is or they frankly aren't going to care. And yes, the problem with the Bush name is that the general election numbers, barring a major mistake from President Obama (watch the interns) are set and incapable of moving from the losing side. For someone as serious as Bush this offers little enticement.
Jeb was my governor for eight years; I voted for him twice. He's a fine executive and handles crisis moments with great efficiency and competence.
His last name IS Bush. It does matter. and that name may be more disliked in conservative circles than liberal, despite what insider pundits are telling you. You think the GOP is fractured now? Only Mitt or Rudy would be more polarizing among the base than Jeb.
Paul Ryan's not ready- but I could get behind him in spite of TARP. Other than that- I look at the current field of possibilities and wince.
I need to be convinced that Jeb does not share disastrous traits of his father and brother. Both were astonishingly passive in the face of savage criticism, and were more willing to let their policies and their party go down in flames than to challenge that criticism. All the while, they tried to be, and seriously thought they were, good friends with the Democrats who were destroying them. The first Bush resulted in a harrowingly close brush with socialized medicine; the second Bush resulted in socialized medicine finally being passed. We can't have such political knuckleheadedness in our leaders, regardless of what else they may bring to the table. Show me Jeb is really a different kind of Bush before I'm sold on him.
See, I knew the Republicans would find a way to lose to Obama in 2012.
With the House in Republican control, and likely to stay that way, and with treaties requiring a Senate super-majority that must have some Republican cooperation, there is only one reason why the White House MUST be taken: Supreme Court. Obama has appointed, and will continue to appoint, hard-left justices with an agenda. This agenda will systematically impose leftist social values. Unlike economic values, which fluctuate, and defense values, which eventually pass, imposed social values are permanent destruction of the People's ability to self-rule.
If the Republicans are not serious about this, then they are not serious about one leg of the three-legged stool of conservatism. That does not surprise me, and it has been separately discussed in other NRO topics. But if so, then why should not the abandoned leg swing to the leftists on those other issues?
Who remembers that "another Clinton" was an argument against Hillary, even in her own party? Who remembers that the Brown family has run California like a fiefdom? (Even Kathleen ran for governor but lost.) Now, you want to run a THIRD Bush?
Jeb Bush was a fantastic governor, the best; but he's no longer a Conservative in the Reagan 3-legged stool model. Education Reform is honorable, but not the pressing issue in our country. And like Sen. John McCain and the late Sen. Kennedy, Jeb Bush is all for immigration "reform." One only need look at California and Arizona to see why we must enforce our immigration laws and the Rule of law.
We remember that Jeb said recently it was "time to get past Ronald Reagan." Why he'd even say that is troubling. Should we get beyond the Founding Fathers, or their philosophy about the Federal government's limited role? We need to revisit the fundamental policies Pres. Reagan represented and implement them before it's too late.
America needs a GOP candidate in '12 who proudly loves his country (& defends our borders), a man who unapologetically defends the sanctity of human life, and who is a solid fiscal conservative.
I know that us conservatives are down on GW because of his domestic "accomplishments". Have any of you pundits ever thought that the price of the war on terror WAS the domestic agenda? I believe that the best evidence for my theory is Obamacare. Here you have the Democrat's signature issue, a 60-seat Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House and it took BRIBERY to get it passed!
The Democrat Party slandered GW every step of the way but always voted for funding and has continued his policies. This might also be a reason that GW didn't really defend himself from the critisim, he knew it didn't mean anything (to Congress).
Unfortunately, Congress has come to resemble a cathouse instead of a deliberative body. Laws are passed, not for the good of the country but based on how the law enriches the member!
Great, just great. Another "compassionate conservative" who believes economic growth is about "our educational system", not such frivolous issues as taxes and regulations.
For years we heard about Japan overtaking us because their kids studied calculus in kindergarten or something; now the threat comes from India, where all those "customer service" agents are going to grow into CEO's of Fortune 500 companies.
Sure.
So Jeb will make sure Washington plays a leading role in my kids' education. Would you like to know my idea of an "educational system"? Making my kids do their homework, and giving a flip about their education. And, no, that's not because of "No Child Left Behind." All that law does is require our schools to test elementary school students every other day, to meet "standards" that are less stringent than you'd think, and which are often far afield from the fundamentals.
But I digress ...
Recall GHWB, who called himself "The Education President". I ask, honestly, was TEP able to speak coherently? I thought Yale had an English Department.
I wonder, from "The Education President" to "No Child Left Behind" to Jeb's "passion" for education, is there a tinge of Ivy League snobbery in the Bush DNA, that us common folk can enjoy some measure of their entitlement by earning a degree?
Ronald Reagan joked that his degree from Eureka College was "honorary." Like so many great and effective presidents, he had common sense and courage. Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt (I and II), Eisenhower, Johnson, Truman, Reagan - as conservatives we don't like them all, but they were all effective, and they were all derided for their lack of formal education (or, in FDR's case, for his lack of intelligence - "A second class mind, but a first class temperament" - said Oliver Wendell Holmes ... okay, that's actually paraphrased, and he was talking about TR, but many of FDR's contemporaries said much the same thing about him).
Santorum....Smart??? Is this the same Santorum that pontificated on the B. Bemmett Show that Christians couldn't get into Bethleham at Christmas because it was in the Gaza Strip and that was controlled by Hamas and they wouldn't let them in....that "smart" Santorum? He needs to take a geography lesson or two before he decides to run for Prez!
The Santorum that threw Joe Miller under the bus just before the November election? Again on the B. Bennet Show. That Santorum?
Everything you say about Jeb Bush being different was said about "W" before 2000 election.And what did we wind up with?....another "Kinder Gentlier"/"Compasionate Conservative" who believes in big government and nation building.If we want Conservative values me must vote a conservative as President and not hope they espouse Conservative values after they are elected.
There aren't enough "pure" conservatives in the country to win an election. You need to capture the center. Reagan Democrats were never as conservative as the Reagan base, but they were needed to carry the day. Jeb Bush may very well do that by carrying, FL, OH and PA and maybe even
I really do not get Kathryn's and a few other NR contributors fascination with Jeb Bush. Even if I grant you that he would be an excellent President, having a Father, Son, Son, Presidential dynasty in the space of twenty odd years would be bad for our Republic. To keep the White House within one family in such a short period of time is just unhealthy for the country.
Now, if I don't grant that Jeb would make an excellent President the argument is even worse. We've see two Bushes that have been somewhat disastrous for the Conservative movement. Do we really want to take the chance that the third Bush would be so much different than the prior two?
This is insanity. In a country of 300 million citizens there surely is a potential candidate out there that would make a better President than Jeb Bush. Let's forget about the Bushes and go find him (or her).
Follow
