Every so often, I read something that makes me reconsider views that I have held for a long time. Today was one of those occasions. I read a column written by Bob Shrum on the Daily Beast. Shrum's thesis is that the GOP has to nominate Jeb Bush for president in 2016 because he is the only one who could possibly make a race of it against Hillary Clinton.
Now I do not usually care what Bob Shrum has to say. After all, the man is a failed political hack. He ran a series of national campaigns for the Democrats and lost every time. This was no one hit wonder; this is a persistent loser who apparently has the political instincts of a cucumber. Nevertheless, Shrum's view did get me to rethink my preferences for 2016. Oh, I do not have a candidate that I am promoting at the moment. There are some who I like (such as Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and John Kasich), others who are acceptable (like Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal) still others I really do not want (like Chris Christie or Rand Paul) and another group of folks I consider likely disasters were they elected (number 1 here is Hillary Clinton, but number 2 would be Biden). Until today, however, I had Jeb Bush in the acceptable group. Bush is a good man who did a great job as governor of Florida. The problem, however, is that Bush is also basically colorless. He will not inspire confidence in his leadership or in the nation itself. His campaign slogan would be "Vote for Treading Water!" What we need, however, is someone who can inspire, someone who can lead, someone who can clearly make the case for changing the way the USA is governed today, someone who can unleash the American economy so that it can return to the great growth engine that made us the richest nation on earth. We need a leader! Say what you will about Reagan or Bill Clinton. They had very different policies, but they both had the ability to lead the public to a new direction. We all thought that we had that again with Obama, but he has shown himself to be all flash and no substance. It did not take long for America to realize this and for Obama to lose his ability to affect events in a major way.
Shrum likes Bush because he is not a leader. He does not say this, but it comes through clearly enough in the article. And here's something that I doubt I would ever say: on this point, I agree with Shrum.
It really is time for Americans to start to coalesce around good candidates for the presidency. We cannot let things drift to a race with an incompetent hack like Hillary on one side and an uninspiring technocrat on the other. It's time to start paying attention and getting ready.
Now I do not usually care what Bob Shrum has to say. After all, the man is a failed political hack. He ran a series of national campaigns for the Democrats and lost every time. This was no one hit wonder; this is a persistent loser who apparently has the political instincts of a cucumber. Nevertheless, Shrum's view did get me to rethink my preferences for 2016. Oh, I do not have a candidate that I am promoting at the moment. There are some who I like (such as Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and John Kasich), others who are acceptable (like Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal) still others I really do not want (like Chris Christie or Rand Paul) and another group of folks I consider likely disasters were they elected (number 1 here is Hillary Clinton, but number 2 would be Biden). Until today, however, I had Jeb Bush in the acceptable group. Bush is a good man who did a great job as governor of Florida. The problem, however, is that Bush is also basically colorless. He will not inspire confidence in his leadership or in the nation itself. His campaign slogan would be "Vote for Treading Water!" What we need, however, is someone who can inspire, someone who can lead, someone who can clearly make the case for changing the way the USA is governed today, someone who can unleash the American economy so that it can return to the great growth engine that made us the richest nation on earth. We need a leader! Say what you will about Reagan or Bill Clinton. They had very different policies, but they both had the ability to lead the public to a new direction. We all thought that we had that again with Obama, but he has shown himself to be all flash and no substance. It did not take long for America to realize this and for Obama to lose his ability to affect events in a major way.
Shrum likes Bush because he is not a leader. He does not say this, but it comes through clearly enough in the article. And here's something that I doubt I would ever say: on this point, I agree with Shrum.
It really is time for Americans to start to coalesce around good candidates for the presidency. We cannot let things drift to a race with an incompetent hack like Hillary on one side and an uninspiring technocrat on the other. It's time to start paying attention and getting ready.
2 comments:
Jeff, Who do you really believe of the GOP potentials can actually defeat the liberal media. This is not a run against HILARY, it is a run against the MEDIA.
They just make up lies, whatever they feel is necessary to collapse a truly serious candidate
To Fastcarken: I have to say that I am not sure which candidate would be best. My preference right now is governor Kasich of Ohio, although he has no real national following. John Kasich has experience with media and has experience that would serve him well as president. Could he be attacked by the media? Sure, but I think he could weather those storms. Scott Walker of Wisconsin could do the same. After all, he has already survived a full onslaught in the recall election by winning in Wisconsin, a remarkable feat. Of course, things could change. As of a year ago, Chris Christie was a fat dynamic, impressive rising star. One year later after some self-inflicted wounds and a major press offensive, Chistie is still fat, but the rest...not so much.
Post a Comment