Redstate

I learned my lesson in 2000 when I jumped on the “anybody but McCain” bandwagon because I foolishly listened to the pundits who tried to make McCain out to be more “liberal” than Bush. About the only distinguishing issue was the BCFRA which Bush said he would veto (he also BTW supported banning soft money so it was a marginal difference).

Six years later, Bush signed the BCFRA into law, McCain demonstrated why he has a well-deserved reputation as a pork-buster while Bush constantly reneged on his veto threats, Medicare Part D became law while Social Security reform never made it out of committee, and McCain’s hawkishness has trumped Bush’s on the War. Needless to say if I could do it over again, I would not have supported Bush over McCain in 2000.

The lesson I learned from that was not to believe all of the hype that gets put out by the pundits (including talk radio, conservative magazines, and the various pressure groups who set themselves as the arbiter of who is the “conservative” candidate) but to do my own research and not let the judgment of others substitute for my own.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

"McCain’s hawkishness has trumped Bush’s on the War", Thorley, please explain that conclusion.

For me on McCain, there are so many issues that lead me to pick almost anyone else in the primary right now, gang of 14, terrorist rights, the tirade last week against Rumsfeld that was incoherent. The list goes on...

Yes if it comes to Hillary and him, sure I chose him, but not now. I'm not going to sit out like so many claim they will do, or claim that many conservatives will do.

A few weeks back you did that nice write up on Rudy and have since done a reversal I know, but as I was flipping stations for a few minutes last night I caught him at an event during a Q&A session and I've got to say it again, he just makes sense when he talks.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

I think a lot of Republicans are dissatisfied with the George W. Bush presidency. Of course, a lot of Democrats and independents are too...but for very different reasons.

GWB is a political liability now (largely, IMO, because he's done some controversial and unpopular things that will, eventually, be regarded as the right things to have done). It's not as if he's somebody like Reagan with broad appeal.

I don't buy as much into the theory that Americans don't like political dynasties. How many Kennedys have we elected to office? How about the Udall family? The Bushes, of course. Evan Bayh, Al Gore, Mary Landrieu, Nancy Kassebaum, Harold Ford, John Sununu....I could go on and on and on. We like to think of ourselves as being better than electing political legacies....but we're not.

in five presidential elections...........four times for a guy named George Bush. :D Similar problem in Illinois....we kept nominating guys with the last name Ryan.

"Brevity is the soul of wit."

In fact, I happen to think that Jeb would probably be the best one of the bunch. He's been a tremendous governor and I think that he doesn't have the baggage that either his father or his brother have had.

Jeb would make a fantastic president and I wouldn't hesitate to vote for him in either a primary or a general election. But it doesn't matter. He's not going to run, at least not this time. And, if he did, he'd get trounced because of his last name.

as liberals have said. They might be sorry for saying it.

I'd really like to see Fred Thompson in the race, too.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Admittedly I don’t follow polls much but I thought that someone like Bill Richardson (Democratic governor of New Mexico – a Red State) would do pretty well particularly as he’s pro-gun, pro-business, cut taxes while governor, and is a Latino who makes a pretty decent show of trying to crackdown on illegal immigration.

I could be wrong (it’s only Tuesday and I haven’t used up my quota of mistakes for the week) but I thought a seemingly "moderate" Democratic governor of a Redstate who isn’t part of the “partisan bickering” of Washington might be more formidable than a one-term Senator who didn’t even carry his home State.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

What makes you think that today's Democratic Party is interested in nominating a tax-cutting, pro-gun, anti-illegal-immigration, pro-business candidate?

Those are epithets for a Democratic primary contestant.

I think Edwards is probably the least likely on that list. But I do think he's more likely than Bill Richardson is. Edwards is still leading a number of polls in Iowa, although his lead has diminished. Richardson just isn't going to have what it takes to emerge from the crowd, IMO.

I usually put Gore on that list -- because I think he'd have a pretty good shot at the Democratic nomination if he ran. But I left him off in favor of Edwards, considering recent reiterations that he isn't going to run.

In any case, the point is that all this musing about somebody other than the "Big 3" is getting old. I don't care if it's Jeb, Brownback, Huckabee, Fred Thompson...whoever. None of these candidates, if they end up running, are going to make even the slightest splash.

I think we're better served talking about those candidates who do stand a chance.

would be a brilliant pick for the Dems in several ways.

First, having cut the New Mexico state income tax IN HALF, Richardson could help neutralize our usual advantage on taxes.

Second, having been fairly friendly to Second Amendment rights -- and expanded NM's concealed-carry law -- Richardson could make the Dem ticket less frightening to gun owners.

Third, Richardson's mother is Mexican; he speaks Spanish fluently and has experience using Spanish on the campaign trail.

Even a modest increase in Hispanic voter registration and turnout would easily tip Florida to the Dems. That's even assuming that Hispanics would vote only 60-40 Democrat with a Hispanic on their ticket -- a very dubiously optimistic assumption.

Richardson would obviously also win his home state, tipping another state that Bush barely won in 2004. Colorado would be in play for the Dems, and so would Arizona if McCain's not on our ticket.

Now, I just hope that Dem primary voters are foolish and left-wing enough to keep Richardson from getting anywhere.....

Bill Richardson is not REMOTELY "anti-illegal-immigration." For example, in December 2006 he spoke out against even the partial border fence that Congress funded but has not yet built along the Mexican border. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR200612....

Nothwithstanding Richardson's actual or perceived "moeration" on other issues, he will leave our borders essentially open and acquiesce in the continuing Third World invasion of America.

Come to think of it, so will Hillary, Obama, Edwards, GEORGE W. BUSH, RUDY GUILIANI, and JOHN MCCAIN.

Thanks for posting the link to the story. I had based my comments on another story I had seen months ago where Governors Richardson and Napolitano had declared a state of emergency over the problems created by illegal aliens that invaded their respective States.

The ironic thing is while I’m not someone who thinks “the fence” ought to be the focus on how to deal with illegal immigration (I’m in the “comprehensive reform” camp), I support it because I think its benefits will outweigh the costs particularly in this sort of situation which lead to the declaration of a state of emergency in four counties in New Mexico by Governor Richardson.

Thanks again for improving my understanding of Governor Richardson’s position on this important issue.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

I remember Richardson & Napolitano declaring the state of emergency too. I was hoping it meant they actually wanted to stop illegal immigration, despite their party affiliation.

But subsequent actions and statements by Richardson show that the declaration was just a ploy to (1) trick voters into thinking he's not a sell-out on illegal immigration and (2) pressure the fed government into giving his state money to deal with the problem (which might not be a bad idea, admittedly).

(I've never lived in NM, so I'm no expert. I just went there a couple weeks a month for work in 2002-2003, and my sister has lived near Albuquerque for past twenty years.)

I've been telling my Democrat friends for years that their key to victory with the Presidency is finding popular, moderate-to-conservative governors in Republican or swing states....they should forget candidates from their liberal strongholds like Vermont, California, Massachusetts, etc.

If they nominated, for instance, Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, I think he'd be unbeatable. But the Democrat base is just as wary of nominating somebody like that as the Republican base is of nominating somebody like Giuliani.

They've got their principles as well....and they don't really like tax cutters or gun-friendlies.

So, Richardson's a non-starter in this day and age, I'm afraid. And that's too bad -- because I think he'd make a fine president as far as Democrats go.

Not of Democrats who I’d cross over to vote for (there is no such list) but of Democrats who I think would be particularly tough to beat as presidential candidates because (a) they’re at least perceived as “moderate” in the style of former President Clinton, (b) they’re governors from States which are considered to be “Red States” which shows a strong crossover appeal, and (c) they’re focused on the sort of “bread and butter” rather than “social issues” which is ultimately what wins elections.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

keeping his mouth shut during the preemptive mudslinging between Hillary and Obama.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Numbers 1, 2, and 6 are either unelectable or will not get their party's nomination. You have to count on #3 creating and maintaining a veneer of seriousness, and I doubt that will happen. That leaves us with two people who can be considered a mayor and a retread.

We have nice machines but bad candidates. That never works, so the machines will find better candidates.

...Hillary or Obama ends up with the Democratic nomination, I'll eat my hat (the only caveat being that Al Gore doesn't get into the race). I do have Edwards on there -- but I think he's a longshot who hasn't done himself any favors of late.

And I disagree, as well, that Romney does not have a shot at the Republican nomination.

Here's what I see happening....

1) I think the McCain candidacy is going to implode. He's trying to rebuild the bridges that he's been doing nothing but burning the past 8 or 9 years...and that's caused the support that he did gain among those disaffected Republicans who didn't like the conservatives (think: Kevin Phillips) to abandon him as well.

He's fast becoming a man without a consistuency.

2) I think Rudy will be considered the frontrunner between now and the primaries. And he's going to be walking a tightrope between maintaining his long-held and well-known liberal social beliefs while privately and subtly convincing conservatives that he'll do no harm to their causes.

3) Romney will get the anti-Rudy vote. There's going to be a strong contingency of Republicans and conservatives who just will not, under any circumstances, vote for Giuliani (at least in a primary). They'll be looking for a conservative candidate with a shot -- and Romney will be that candidate. The others (Brownback, Huckabee, etal) will be fortunate to make it to South Carolina, if that far.

I'm not ready to say who will eventually emerge. Because Rudy's got some rough waters ahead. His vulnerabilities are no secret. I tend to give the edge to him, considering that he's polling better among conservatives than many thought he would.

On the Democrat side, I think there are more question marks -- the biggest one being Al Gore's situation. I don't buy into the Obamania...I just think that's the ABH (Anybody But Hillary) contingent trying to find somebody -- anybody -- with a chance to beat her. They were excited about Warner, then he dropped out. Now they're excited by Obama. If Gore gets in, it'll move to him and Obama will fade.

And while many say that it's Hillary's war vote that is pushing them away from her, I think what it really is is just a suspicion that she wouldn't be able to win the general election.

____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

As much as I like Jeb's record on taxes, spending, and school reform in Florida, putting another Bush on our ticket right now would turn off too many voters.

By the way, conservatives and libertarians should be aware that Jeb does have a disturbing position on one major issue: as Governor, he expanded state-sponsored discrimination against whites.

In 2002, Jeb signed HB 1323, which created the Florida Minority Business Loan Mobilization Program. Under the program, state-certified businesses owned by "minorities" (non-whites) -- regardless of assets or revenue -- can request advance payment up to 105 on state contract awards. The intent is to help non-whites obtain or increase working-capital financing.

Jeb could have made this privilege available to all businesses with assets, revenue, or profit below a certain level, regardless of race, as suggested by Ward Connerly and the American Civil Rights Coalition. But he didn't. He expanded the state government's existing discrimination against white citizens.

I think that any Bush - even one that's not related to the Bush family - is going to be politically difficult to put on a ticket.

The electorate is weary, and they want fresh faces and new blood. Jeb on the ticket partially cancels this out because he has a name that is not so fresh.

Romney/Pence v. Clinton/Richardson, anybody? :-)

Most people do not care who a VP is. And they do not vote based on it.

But SoCons and FLians are two groups who will pay attention to a Giuliani or McCain pick of Jeb.

Giuliani v. Hillary will not be tainted by a Jeb VP. Giuliani's appeal will not be noticeably dropped by choosing Jeb. And Giuliani can introduce him as a successful, popular GOV of FL.

I would agree more if the nominee is a Romney, Brownback or Huckabee. They need to win over independents and adding a Bush to the ticket will hurt.

But independents and swing voters are not going to overlook a unifer like Giuliani or McCain for a divider like Hillary b/c of a VP pick.

So at worst, Jeb wouldn't hurt a ticket in the middle but could help shore up the right.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I guess I should clarify that I don't think that Jeb would hurt the ticket, per se. But I think it takes away a benefit to the GOP ticket that can say - "we've already had Clinton in the White House, it's time for something new." I think that message would hold a great deal of appeal for people looking for a breath of fresh air.

If Jeb is on the ticket, I can see the Hillary Campaign saying, "So what another Clinton is running. There's a Bush on the Republican ticket, and who wants another Bush? At least it's been 8 years since we've had a Clinton in office...and remember how great those years were?"

The Hill camp will find a way to make it about Jeb being a Bush - and they'd do that early on, giving them a short-term punching bag and then save the rough and tough stuff for the GOP nominee in September thru Election Day.

As radioactive as Newt is, I think he would be less a liability for Giuliani than Jeb would be. And you've got the double G power of Giuliani/Gingrich. :-)

I think that Mike Pence would be a brilliant choice for Mitt Romney that would assure conservatives that for the issues he's accused of flipping and flopping on - he's flipped for the final time.

Despite my comments above about Jeb's unfortunate last name, it's really hard to argue with a guy who can bring you a swing state as huge as Florida.

Especially when we have zero chance at 2 of the 3 states that are bigger than Florida.

-------------------------

To highlight the increasing usefulness of having a Florida Gov/Sen on the ticket, Florida may be third-largest by 2016.

Pop in July 2006
NY 19.3 m
FL 18.1 m

Pop growth from 1990-2000
FL 23.5%
NY 5.5%

Pop growth from 2000 to July 2005
FL 1.9 million
NY < 0.3 million

Obviously, Jeb's state will add electoral votes (and House seats) in 2010, along with Cali, Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and Oregon.

As many here know, I'm a numbers geek. This week I was playing with population growth and its effect on the electoral map.

FL will be larger than NY by 2010 and both will have 29 EVs after the census (in the 2012 election).

Using the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) from 2000-2006 and extending to 2010, here's what I get:

New York 19,514,860
Florida 19,593,680

I may do a front page post on the EV changes for 2012 at some point. A little has changed since 2004 when I did some similar analysis. For example, it looks like CA will not get a new seat (staying at 55 EVs). And it looks like TX will get 4 instead of 3 (moving to 38).

Other random fun fact. Using the same CAGR formula, GA passes MI by 2010 for the 8th spot.

Michigan 10,189,965
Georgia 10,205,350

And for those who missed it, NC passed NJ this year for 10th place. Now there are 5 "red" states in the top ten: TX, FL, OH, GA, and NC. Of course, two are swingy "red" states. The other 5 are CA, NY, IL, PA, and MI. Note that two of those are "swingy" as well. So 3 red, 3 blue, 4 swing in the Big 10.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I'll spill the beans. Here are the states adding seats in 2010 under the above CAGR formula:

TX 4
FL 2
GA 1
AZ 2
UT 1
NV 1

And here are the losers:

NY 2
IL 1
PA 1
OH 2
MI 1
MA 1
MO 1
LA 1
IA 1

Net gain: Bush +6, Kerry -6

Net with swing states: Red +7, Purple -3, Blue -4.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

...in 2016. :-)

Unless of course Romney/Pence is coming to an end in 2016 and Vice President Mike Pence is running for the presidency. :-) Then, maybe Pence/Bush in 2016. In 2024, Jeb Bush will be 71 - one year younger than McCain will be in 2008 - and 79 upon leaving office in a 2-term presidency. Kinda old, but we'll see.

Maybe he can take then Texas Governor R. Ted Cruz as his running mate if Cruz isn't on the Supreme Court by that time. :-)

This is why I hope my governor, Haley Barbour, makes a run in the future. His leadership during Katrina was inspiring, and would play well nationally.

------------------------------
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan

Instead of judging him b/c of his father and brother, check out his record as Governor for 8 years of a state with over 18 million citizens.

In your research, make sure to read this. Jeb is the best Governor in the United States right now. And being GOV in a big state is much harder than in a small state.

Jeb is great leader. And discarding him because of his family is just as odious as supporting him for that reason.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

Absolutely correct.

However, by and large, Americans are pretty shallow in these times and something as simple an argument as "Not another Bush - No dynasty!" will carry enormous weight with the general population.

I think that's what most of the complaints here are getting at: It's not Jeb Bush they are concerned with, it's the people who have to stop playing with their Wii-Wii and Megatronic PlasmaDLPDVRsurroundsound football screens to go vote. "Not another Bush" will resonate with enough of them to be a liability for the GOP.

For those reasons I am concerned about Jeb and likewise Dick Cheney. He's be a superb, brass knuckles POTUS, but in the voters minds he'd be a dark spot of negative associations.

As best I can tell both of them are smart enough to know better than to try and run in this environment.