Jeb Bush

[fj1200]

For Jeb Bush, the Q&A is the message (http://news.yahoo.com/for-jeb-bush--the-q-a-is-the-message-004359060.html)

...
On Friday afternoon, Bush will make his first appearance at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference and test his more open, interactive approach before an audience of hard-core conservative organizers and activists. Bush aides asked CPAC organizers over a month ago if Bush could dispense with the traditional stump speech from a podium and instead do a question-and-answer interview, one aide told Yahoo News. Bush saw little point in giving a traditional address, because he wanted to confront and answer questions about his potential candidacy and his credentials as a conservative. The result is that he will be interviewed onstage by Fox News’Sean Hannity for 20 minutes, instead of giving the sort of rousing, red-meat speech CPAC speakers often seek to do.It’s intended to signal he’s interested in a two-way conversation with the base, rather than showcasing a top-down, take-it-or-leave it style. In that respect, it matches up well with an emerging narrative among conservative thinkers: that they are the ones most in sync with the Internet age, while liberals’ emphasis on central planning is an old-fashioned political philosophy out of step with an era of disruption and locally driven solutions to problems.
Bush’s appearance at CPAC has also attracted extra attention because he has established himself as the leader in the early 2016 running, and will be facing his first real test as a presumptive candidate, in an encounter with an audience predisposed to dislike him.
But his more informal approach is also a much safer route for a political figure viewed with suspicion by many conservatives, given that he would probably not win many standing ovations during a traditional speech. The tactic also sends a message, in and of itself, that Bush is working against one of his biggest weaknesses: his status as scion of a political dynasty, the son of a former president and the brother of another. The Q&A format suggests that Bush is interested in putting himself at the level of his audience and engaging with them, rather than talking at down at them or “lecturing” them, the Bush aide said.
...

Will Jeb be there in the end?

[Trigg]

let's hope not. I would like to be excited about the next election, instead of voting for someone in the hopes that whoever that is defeats Hillary.

[Elessar]

I would far more consider anyone but Hillary, Period!

She is sleazy and dirty.

Jeb is not the same cloth of his brother, who I do respect.

He would be a far more capable leader than Clinton, that
carpetbagging wench. If she would have denounced Billy for
all his sexual scandals...I might have considered her a little.

But she has too much personal baggage herself.

[fj1200]

let's hope not. I would like to be excited about the next election, instead of voting for someone in the hopes that whoever that is defeats Hillary.

I think he's going to be a formidable candidate, incredibly smart and campaign tested. I just thought of this, a Walker-Bush ticket would be funny.

[fj1200]

But she has too much personal baggage herself.

I don't think she makes it through anyway so we could use a "not Hillary but who" thread.

[aboutime]

Personally. I cannot consider Bush as a viable candidate until, and UNLESS he recognizes that ILLEGALS Are breaking US. Laws, sanctioned, and ignored by Congress, and the Present Idiot called Obama. He must do a 180 and honestly ENFORCE OUR LAWS FIRST.

A border tightening would be nice. But the BS he spews in ILLEGAL defense JUST CAN'T CUT IT.

[darin]

Unless conservatives find a candidate who is good looking, with a smooth voice, amd can stir up the "takers" in society, they have NO hope.

[Elessar]

Personally. I cannot consider Bush as a viable candidate until, and UNLESS he recognizes that ILLEGALS Are breaking US. Laws, sanctioned, and ignored by Congress, and the Present Idiot called Obama. He must do a 180 and honestly ENFORCE OUR LAWS FIRST.

A border tightening would be nice. But the BS he spews in ILLEGAL defense JUST CAN'T CUT IT.

Agreed!

[Elessar]

Unless conservatives find a candidate who is good looking, with a smooth voice, amd can stir up the "takers" in society, they have NO hope.

For 8 years, I thought Ms. Condi Rice would be a perfect candidate.

[LongTermGuy]

Personally. I cannot consider Bush as a viable candidate until, and UNLESS he recognizes that ILLEGALS Are breaking US. Laws, sanctioned, and ignored by Congress, and the Present Idiot called Obama. He must do a 180 and honestly ENFORCE OUR LAWS FIRST.

A border tightening would be nice. But the BS he spews in ILLEGAL defense JUST CAN'T CUT IT.


`Agree....besides...he is boring and offers nothing special....

[Kathianne]

Not surprisingly given the age average at CPAC, Rand Paul won, with Scott walker a close 2nd. Bush was I think 5th.

[LongTermGuy]

Not surprisingly given the age average at CPAC, Rand Paul won, with Scott walker a close 2nd. Bush was I think 5th.

***

....and remember who`s on 3rd...him and walker would be a great pair...

[gabosaurus]

Read my lips...

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2309/1805239124_3905045e70_b.jpg

[Kathianne]

***

....and remember who`s on 3rd...him and walker would be a great pair...
I don't remember, Cruz or Carson?

[gabosaurus]

Unless the GOP selects a candidate that appeals to women, minorities and voters between the ages of 18-25, they are doomed to another crushing defeat in 2016.
The following are non-starters: Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Rand Paul and Ben Carson.
Walker and Perry carry only regional appeal to the mainstream of America. Paul and Cruz are too far left. No one really knows who Carson is.

[revelarts]

Any of these people going to roll back domestic spying? collecting all our data in Utah?
Hold the NSA, FBI etc feet to the fire as the CiC?
Or this that all just part of the R and D platforms now? constitution be hanged.
Anyone care any more?
Patriot Act?
TSA?

Anyone of them seriously going to do anything about Obama/Romney care?

Anyone of them seriously going to do anything about immigration?

Anyone serious about a balanced budget and the deficit?

Tarp and other bailouts to Corps?

Anyone going to bring Wall St crooks to prosecution?

Anyone going to do what Obama promised and get lobbyist out of the White House?
Have more gov't transparency?
Decrease the crony capitalism that Michelle Bachmen spoke about so well?


We get what we ask for, the lesser of 2 evils is still...
Even if i has an R behind it's name.

[jimnyc]

Not surprisingly given the age average at CPAC, Rand Paul won, with Scott walker a close 2nd. Bush was I think 5th.

I think Walker is the only one with a chance out of them Paul won 3 years in a row and still has no hope. People won't vote for racism and kookery. I think anyone with "Bush" as a name will ultimately lose no matter what, regardless of stances and their own independent history.

[Kathianne]

I think Walker is the only one with a chance out of them Paul won 3 years in a row and still has no hope. People won't vote for racism and kookery. I think anyone with "Bush" as a name will ultimately lose no matter what, regardless of stances and their own independent history.

I hope your right, though 2 Bush nominees in 10 years is sort of intimidating. He will have the money and experienced people behind him. The later being very important. He showed up at CPAC, something he probably did not want to do, yet he did. While I and most conservatives do not agree with him on several important topics, he was prepared with reasonable/points for his positions, he delivered them strongly and often with self-deprecating humor. He was not petulant with his detractors.

Peggy Noonan has a column up that Scott Walker should read very carefully and have his staff study and make recommendations. It contains the seeds of "hitting back twice as hard" and also being honest-both in response to detractors and not bloodying oneself. It's important not to let the press and/or opposition define your words. It's important to clarify what may be misconstrued:

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2015/02/28/walker-reagan-and-patco/


On Friday at the winter meeting of the Club for Growth, in Palm Beach, Fla., Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a possible contender for the GOP presidential nomination, was pressed for specifics of his foreign-policy views. Walker referred to policy professionals with whom he’d recently met, and then suggested that what is most important in foreign policy is not experience but leadership. The “most consequential foreign-policy decision” of his lifetime, he said, was President Reagan’s handling of the air traffic controller’s strike. “It sent a message not only across America, it sent a message around the world.” The message: “We wouldn’t be messed with.”

That caused a lot of raised eyebrows. I here attempt to return them to a more relaxed state. In the 1990s, when I was researching and interviewing for my biography of Reagan, “When Character Was King,” I became more deeply aware of the facts and meaning of Reagan and the flight controllers, and I discovered an element of the story that I think had not previously come fully to light:

...


What Reagan did not speak about was an aspect of the story that had big foreign-policy implications.
Air traffic controllers in effect controlled the skies, and American AWACS planes were patrolling those skies every day. Drew Lewis: “The issue was not only that it was an illegal strike. . . . It was also that a strike had real national-security implications—the AWACS couldn’t have gone up.” It is likely that even though the public and the press didn’t fully know of this aspect of the strike’s effects, the heads of the union did. That’s why they thought Reagan would back down. “This hasn’t come up,” said Lewis, “but the Soviets and others in the world understood the implications of the strike.”
The administration quickly put together a flight control system composed of FAA and Defense Department personnel, and private controllers, to keep commercial traffic—and US military aircraft—in the air.

...

Foreign governments, from friends and allies to adversaries and competitors, saw that the new president could make tough decisions, pay the price, and win the battle. The Soviets watched like everybody else. They observed how the new president handled a national-security challenge. They saw that his rhetorical toughness would be echoed in tough actions. They hadn’t known that until this point. They knew it now.

This is why Reagan’s secretary of state George Shultz said that the Patco decision was the most important foreign-policy decision Reagan ever made.
Everyone knew at the time that it was a domestic crisis. It wasn’t until years later that they came to appreciate that it was foreign-affairs victory.
So was Scott Walker right about the importance of Reagan and Patco?

Yes.

But two caveats. One is that Ronald Reagan himself would never suggest, on the way to the presidency, that all you need to understand foreign policy is a good gut and leadership abilities. You need knowledge, sophistication, grasp. He’d been studying foreign affairs all his adult life. He walked into the Oval Office with a policy: We win, the Soviets lose. A talent for leadership doesn’t tell you where to go, it helps you get there. Wisdom tells you where to go.

Second, in January Walker said that documents released by the Soviet Union proved the Soviets treated the U.S. differently after the strike. I have never heard of such documents. No one I spoke to for the book referred to them. The Washington Post has quoted former Reagan ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock, saying “There is no evidence of that whatsoever.” I suspect that is correct.

If Walker got it wrong, he should say so. Though I’m not sure it matters in any deep way. Of course the Soviets saw and understood what had happened with Reagan and the union. Of course they would factor it in. They had eyes. They didn’t have to write it down.

[Kathianne]

Gotta like this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1879271765/2375_84984116216_633511216_2728356_7132856_n_norma l.jpgDavid Burge @iowahawkblog (https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog)
Follow (https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog)
The most impressive thing about Walker's Throne of Skulls: every single skull beheaded itself.
4:58 PM - 28 Feb 2015 (https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/571821725773524992)

[tailfins]

Unless the GOP selects a candidate that appeals to women, minorities and voters between the ages of 18-25, they are doomed to another crushing defeat in 2016.
The following are non-starters: Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Rand Paul and Ben Carson.
Walker and Perry carry only regional appeal to the mainstream of America. Paul and Cruz are too far left. No one really knows who Carson is.

Never take "advice" from the opposition. Victory lays in getting away from identity politics.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Jeb Bush would be a bad choice for a number of reasons.
His stand on illegals is dead wrong and he seems to be in the globalist's camp.
Yet even he would be a magnificent choice when compared to the out going scum he'd replace.-Tyr

[tailfins]

Jeb Bush would be a bad choice for a number of reasons.
His stand on illegals is dead wrong and he seems to be in the globalist's camp.
Yet even he would be a magnificent choice when compared to the out going scum he'd replace.-Tyr

Don't forget his support for Common Core.

[revelarts]

Any of these people going to roll back domestic spying? collecting all our data in Utah?
Hold the NSA, FBI etc feet to the fire as the CiC?
Or this that all just part of the R and D platforms now? constitution be hanged.
Anyone care any more?
Patriot Act?
TSA?

Anyone of them seriously going to do anything about Obama/Romney care?

Anyone of them seriously going to do anything about immigration?

Anyone serious about a balanced budget and the deficit?

Tarp and other bailouts to Corps?

Anyone going to bring Wall St crooks to prosecution?

Anyone going to do what Obama promised and get lobbyist out of the White House?
Have more gov't transparency?
Decrease the crony capitalism that Michelle Bachmen spoke about so well?


We get what we ask for, the lesser of 2 evils is still...
Even if i has an R behind it's name.

no reply.

just "anyone but Hillary" then. no concern about "conservative" issues except immigration?

abortion?
gun control?
Health Care?
Balanced Budget?

Nothing? just pick any ol R that can "WIN"? we don't really care what you do just talk like a conservative most of the time? And beat Hillary.

sad

[Gunny]

For Jeb Bush, the Q&A is the message (http://news.yahoo.com/for-jeb-bush--the-q-a-is-the-message-004359060.html)




Will Jeb be there in the end?

The fact is he doesn't have a chance because of his name. The Demcocraps and the media will choose the Republican candidate again.