Hillary Clinton

Bush vs. Clinton in 2016, Because America is a Land of Opportunity

|

Via Instapundit comes this link to Ron Radosh's column about the push to draft former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for the the GOP presidential nomination in 2106:

I have no objections to Jeb Bush running for president. He obviously has a wide appeal as a potential candidate. … What I do object to is that Bush is already being heralded as the obvious candidate, the man to whom the big money must and will flow. As the Washington Post reports:

"Many of the Republican Party's most powerful insiders and financiers have begun a behind-the-scenes campaign to draft former Florida governor Jeb Bush into the 2016 presidential race, courting him and his intimates and starting talks on fundraising strategy."

Radosh goes on to note

As for the Democratic Party, its equivalents in the big-money community have anointed Hillary as their preferred candidate. Like Jeb Bush, she has not said she is going to run, but is already taking all the steps to have the money ready to flow and the organizations on the ground should she decide to take the step.

Read the whole thing.

I'm less certain that either of the anointed will ever officially run but I share Radosh's antipathy toward a possible showdown between any Bush and any Clinton again in my lifetime (and I hope to live another 50 years). Though I don't share his reasons for fearing the match-up:

So we have the possibility of a Clinton nomination on the Democratic side and a Bush nomination on the Republican side, and the chance that in both parties, mavericks dissatisfied with that choice will favor an independent run of their own. For now, all bets are off, but a third-party run — either by a disenchanted Democrat or a conservative or libertarian Republican — always hurts the party they broke from and more likely ensures the political victory of a candidate they all disdain.

To me, the idea of a wide-open race, with several candidates representing more points on the political spectrum isn't a bad thing at all. It's simply a sign that the current parties no longer represent coherent groupings of allies. That's especially true, I think, on the Republican side, where the ostensible party of small government is generally supportive of all sorts of super-invasive incursions on the right to be left alone. This includes opposition to gay marriage, drug legalization, and immigration reform that relies heavily on fortified borders and an employment-verification system that will punish all of us for deigning to work in the good ol' Land of Opportunity. And then there is the spending side of the equation: the last time the GOP ran the whole federal government, we saw an explosion of spending and regulatory zeal that should provide confidence to no friend of limited government. Does anyone seriously believe that, with the possible exception of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), any of the leading Republican prospects won't be all about expanding the surveillance state and the military-industrial complex upon taking power?

The Dems of course, have their own problems. For all their interest in mandating this and that, they've failed to soothe their far-left wing and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is talking about a White House. On top of that, the economic policies of Barack Obama have been nothing short of a disaster and the only thing that's kept things from being even worse is that he managed to get a Republican House elected two years into his reign of error.

But I think Radosh has it wrong: That the two major parties can't control their voting blocs is simply a sign that they need to change their agendas if they want to command reliable numbers of votes.

Given the number of people who say they worry that the government has too much power, is doing too many things that should be left to individuals and businessness, support gay marriage and drug legalization, and more, there's a clear path to creating a new socially tolerant, fiscally responsible agenda for a party that wants to Win the Future rather than just having its own members shaking their heads and mumbling "WTF."

Advertisement

NEXT: Steve Chapman on NSA Surveillance and the Dangers of Power

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is talking about a White House.

    “A White House” fake scandal? Tattoo? Block party?

    Oh, “a White House *run*”!

    1. Actually, there were left out in front of “White House”, them being “Paint the

    2. If you look at the alt-text you’ll see it’s actually Bernie Saunders.

      1. Nice catch.

        *** gets more coffee ***

    3. Sanders vs. Paul would make an interesting all-physician matchup. We usually get lawyer vs. lawyer.

  2. Just wait until 2024: George P. Bush vs. Chelsea Clinton.

    1. Sometimes you have to go through a lot of Bush to get to the picnic.

      1. and there’s the most compelling case for another Bush presidency – the puns

        1. “W” “P”!

    2. “””George P. Bush vs. Chelsea Clinton””

      No vs, it will be the marriage between the Bush, Clinton, Obama clans (three way marriages are not only legal but mandatory under the tax power of the US according to the Supreme Court) in a noble cause of bipartisanship which in the future words of the NYT “will end divisiveness in Washington” plus save money by ending the need for those ugly elections.

  3. Your hereditary nobility seems in rude health

    1. “Ours”? The Zionist Illuminati Lizard People have agents in control of all nation states, babe.

      Are you forgetting the spawning pools located deep within Coober Pedy?

      1. Swimming in them once a year is the secret of my eternal youth

        1. Are you an elderly oatmeal enthusiast?

    2. After translating that from Ozzie to American, I can agree. And state that I wish it would become much more polite.

  4. Uncle Bernie? Running for the WH? Awesome.

    I do not think I would ever vote for the man but I will credit him for at least sticking to his guns far more than most politicians. He is an unashamed socialist. Also have it on good word that he at least communicates with his constituents on a regular basis, though perhaps that is easier in a small state.

    I would love to see Paul v. Sanders in 2016. How much more black and white could the choices be?

    1. “””He is an unashamed socialist”””

      Which means he is less communist then most in Washington

  5. We should probably not be casting our votes based on name or race. And I mean that both ways.

  6. Well, on the bright side, Jeb is “the smart one”.

    1. They can thank god for relativity

  7. Nothing demonstrates how disconnected the Republican elite are from the rest of the country better than pushing for someone with the last name Bush to run for the White House.

    1. In a lot of ways, it’s unfair, because Jeb actually was a fairly competent governor. Still, there’s no way in hell I’d ever vote for him, and a lot of that is just his last name.

      1. I don’t know much about him, other than he seems to be the darling of a certain branch of the Republican party. I suspect the same is true of a vast majority of voters. That means it will be extremely easy to connect him to W., and that should be enough to convince greater than 50% of people to vote against him.

  8. Run Ben Run!

    Dr. Carson could be a viable alternative.

    1. Why? Other than having once been a jerk to Obama in an amusing fashion, what qualifies him to be President?

      1. Yep, he’s no community organizer nor tireless advocate for the downtrodden.

        1. Yeah, and Obama pretty much underlines why picking someone with no executive experience because they gave a speech that got you excited is a dumb idea.

      2. I count his entire career spent as a physician instead of a politician or political advocate as a plus.

        1. But Paul & Sanders are MDs too. Hey, maybe it could be an all-MD 3-way with them & this guy. How about that Saunders? Chicken?

          1. Bernie’s not a doctor.

    2. Don’t know a thing about him, except what doesn’t matter. (Black, religious, Republican, physician.)

    3. Run away, Ben. I don’t know if that guy smokes a blunt by himself before he gets in front of a TV camera, but he comes across as either really stoned or just stupid. I’m sure he’s a brilliant surgeon but when he talks he sounds as dumb as a stump.

  9. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. This is what you get when you allow a ruling class to develop.

    The stupid party is completely out of touch and desperate beyond measure. Talk about grasping at straws. Jeb Bush? I don’t think they can read the writing on the wall but somewhere deep down they have the feeling that their days are numbered, they just aren’t sure why.

    The dems on the other hand are heading down the road to disaster as fast as they can go and are completely clueless. They think they can keep expanding government forever and it will never collapse in on itself. We may be seeing signs of it already.

    Does anyone know what has become of the CIA spying on the Senate scandal? Did it just evaporate?

    1. Does anyone know what has become of the CIA spying on the Senate scandal? Did it just evaporate?

      There’s this missing plane, so national media literally can’t think of anything else.

  10. I look forward to candidates Jeb Bush and HRC presenting medals of awesomeness to each other at the begining of their presidential debate.

    1. Why not? Jeb’s already given the Freedom Medal to HRC at the U.S. Constitution Center and very few thought that ironic or a travesty.

  11. I’d rather see the Presidency awarded via a Golden Ticket inside a candy bar wrapper than the current “American Imbecile” system.

    1. hmmmm there may be a point to this, golden ticket every year for who gets to be figure head of the “free” world

  12. On top of that, the economic policies of Barack Obama have been nothing short of a disaster…

    5 years of Obama.

  13. incursions on the right to be left alone. This includes opposition to gay marriage…

    Nothing says “Leave me alone” like begging the government for a permission slip to get tax breaks and legal carveouts denied to everybody else. Libertopia is truly upon us.

  14. The Democratic Party is a neoliberal, corporate party. It advocates austerity at home and aggression abroad. The party will not be reformed from within by one person; the party would reform him.

    The Green Party, on the other hand, does not need reforming. It needs growth, investment, and visibility. It’s time to build a leftist third party that can challenge the two corporate parties on a substantive, noncorporate, progressive level.

    If you would like to see Bernie Sanders reject the Democratic Party in his 2016 campaign for president in favor of a truly leftist coalition, you can ask him to seek the Green nomination by signing this petition:

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/pzhlvwc

    1. Yes, because we here at reason are ardent socialists who love big government and authority stomping on our lives. go green indeed… fucking tool

  15. Also have it on good word that he at least communicates with his constituents on a regular basis, though perhaps that is easier in a small state.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.