While “still assessing” a 2016 White House run, Jeb Bush is ”moving forward” on a final decision, the Associated Press reported Monday. The former Florida governor’s son George P. Bush told ABC’s “This Week” that his father entering the race was more likely than it was in 2012.
His clan, naturally, is “rallying behind the prospect and pulling the old machine out of the closet,” The New York Times weighed in on Sunday.
“Within the family, the top cheerleaders have been George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, both of whom know something about running for president, and both of whom have an interest in perpetuating, if not redeeming, the family legacy,” the report notes.
“But the Bushes are wary of the presumption of a dynasty,” the profile continues, citing a spokesman discounting the family feeling a sense of entitlement and adding “[I]t would be poison to a candidacy if that perception were ever to get out there.”
It’s a bit late for that. “”Read my lips. No new Bushes” is already a slogan being used by those who oppose a Republican Kennedy counterpart, and that’s not just Democrats.
“Jeb Bush’s tax stand could plague possible 2016 presidential run,” The Washington Times noted Sunday, citing opposition from within the Republican camp by Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist. “Jeb stabbed Republicans in the back just when they were unified in insisting on major spending cuts with no tax increases.”
That would be the same Grover Norquist who also wears a National Rifle Association director’s hat, that is when he’s not endorsing Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence award recipients. The thing is, as an NRA director who is working on the “Don’t call it amnesty” immigration “reform” con along with Michael Bloomberg and (the disappointing) Rand Paul, Norquist ought to be able to find a lot of common ground with Bush when he puts on his other hats.
That’s because citizen disarmament fanatics have attacked Bush as an NRA puppet, and he has been pretty good on guns, except for advocating ending all private sales that take place at gun shows. Plus, like Norquist, Bush supports… hey, somebody tell Breitbart they’re not supposed to call it “amnesty.”
We’ve seen why gun owners should oppose that, and why members should demand NRA get off the stick and admit that bringing in millions of new Democrat voters will ultimately undo all hard-fought and won legislative and judicial gains. Amnesty, whether you call it that or not, is part of the vaunted “single issue.” No amount of denial of all objective analyses and excuse-making will alter that it is the greatest danger legal recognition of the right to keep and bear arms will face over the next few decades. And Bush, evidently agreeing with Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson, that illegal immigrants have “earned” the right to be citizens, effectively undoes every “pro-gun” decision he’s ever made by embracing a prospective electorate that will reverse them.
Curiously, one politician who agrees with Jeb and Grover and Michael and Rand is presumptive Democrat presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, someone who is trying to establish a political dynasty of her own. Evidently coached with the same talking points, she declares herself to be a “huge supporter of immigration reform and a path to citizenship.”
See? She won’t call it “amnesty,” either. Yet.
Maybe that’s another reason Jeb takes so warmly to her.
“Former Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to serving and engaging people across the world in democracy,” Bush declared. He then presented her with the National Constitution Center’s 2013 Liberty Medal.
As Jack Paar used to say, “I kid you not.”
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers,” the late Georgetown University professor Carroll Quigley, an early “important influence” on Hillary’s husband Bill, admitted.“Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.”
What we see happening on the national scale is a repeat of what establishment Republicans have managed to pull off in the midterms—marginalizing and eliminating “Tea Party” threats and presenting candidates who, while toeing the line for the most part to keep issue voters from bolting, nonetheless are laying the foundations for a fundamental transformation every bit as alien to the limited government Republic mandated by the Constitution as the one Barack Obama has been less subtly imposing.
The late Lee Atwater, former chair of the Republican National Committee, is reputed to have replied something along the lines of “Who else are they going to vote for?” when asked about gun owner support for squishy GOP candidates. The party is counting on that, and being able to offer a Jeb Bush, who despite his flaws, only needs the word “Hillary” uttered to spook defensive votes and prove Atwater right.
What establishment Republicans seemingly fail to comprehend is that while some gun owners may hold their noses and vote for a candidate they don’t truly believe in, what they’re not motivated to do is contribute effort, time and money. They seemingly fail to understand that championship games are never won by teams that lack fire in their bellies.
One would think the lessons of Bob Dole and Mitt Romney would have made more of an impression. One would think the Republicans would know better than to snuff out what few embers of resolve there are.
They also fail to understand that some gun owners are done playing their game. While trying to work within the system as long as it will let them, they are also committed that no matter what happens, no matter who gains power, no matter which “laws” are passed and what court rulings are issued, they are done ceding rights, and will simply not obey any new edicts. If the entire country turns into one big Connecticut, with a situation there is neither enough will nor manpower to enforce, the control freaks are going to find they have a math problem.
As far as Jeb Bush throwing his hat in the ring, perhaps his potential “opponent” Hillary put it best.
What difference does it make?