Showing posts with label jeb bush can suck it. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jeb bush can suck it. Show all posts

Monday, July 26, 2021

Brief Notes On the Price of Political Pandering July 2021

It's become clear in 2021 that the Republican Party still kneels and begs for table scraps at the foot of the eternal Shitgibbon known as trump.

As the near-unstoppable cycle of election campaigning kicks up for 2022, a number of high-profile Republican candidates at the state and Congressional level have spent a lot of effort playing to trump's unstable world-views and conspiracy rants. Noticeable among these sycophants is George P. Bush, son of... one of the Bush brothers, hold on let me check the Wikipedia biography oh yes it's JEB! - who is entering the political stage by running for state-level office in Texas. Specifically for State Attorney General, running as a challenger against the incumbent Ken Paxton.

Normally, intraparty challenges are rare outside of the purity-test extremists taking their shot at the office-holder they deem insufficiently RINO. It's kind of hard to paint Paxton as a RINO given all the crazy-ass stuff he's done as AG... and that's just the legal stuff. Another big reason for Bush's challenge is that Paxton is currently indicted on corruption and securities fraud charges, something that ought to have driven an honest crook to resign for the good of the party. It's just with this modern Republican Party, corruption charges is now a goddamned badge of honor to these guys.

In order to win, George P. has spent his early days campaigning even further to the right than Paxton, going so far as to openly worship at the foot of trump (party kingmaker) himself. All of this in spite of the open contempt the Bush family itself has towards trump, whom they view as destroying a Republican Party they built and once dominated themselves.

But hey, one of the things about the Bushes, if you ever watched them from Bush the Elder from the 1960s on through to Bush the Lesser in the 2000s to weak Fredo uh Jeb! the Exclamation Point: A Bush running for office will pander and debase themselves as much as needed to win that office.

So where did all of George P.'s love affair for trump lead him?

trump still went with the openly (allegedlys) corrupt Paxton. Why not? trump must figure Paxton will cut him into Paxton's piece of the action...

Ergo, to this bit of schadenfreude:



I wonder what George P. will do now. Probably crawl back to the Bush Family Compound and convene a session with their current elders to decide the next step of revenge against Paxton. I wonder how many judges in line to handle Paxton's indictments still owe a favor or three to the Bushes... 

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Some Thoughts About South Carolina and Nevada Tonight (Updated)

The primaries trudge on, this time stopping in South Carolina for a GOP primary and also a side trip for the Democrats into Nevada for another confusing caucus (Republicans will caucus in Nevada next week, Democrats will primary next week in South Carolina. This is how effed up our primary system is).

As far as the Nevada results go - coming in earlier than South Carolina due to odd hours of the day hosting them - it's looking like Hillary Clinton secures the win there despite the Bernie Sanders late surge.

As far as the results are going for the Republicans, the media outlets have already declared Trump the winner, and now it's a question of who gets to be in Second Place and get the set of steak knives, because Third Place is gonna net zero delegates right now and that's pretty much means Alec Baldwin is here to fire you.

As things are polling now, Rubio is in a tight spot for Second Place, which is going to be annoying as hell because the effing media is gonna keep acting like Rubio is gonna happen. /headdesk

It's odd to note that Cruz - who campaigned as sleazy and pandering in South Carolina like never before, even robocalling in favor of the goddamn Confederate Battle Flag - isn't doing as well in Fundamentalist, Far Right Wingnut South Carolina. Very odd...

It's not odd to note that Jeb? is polling under 10 percent overall in South Carolina. Considering how the Bush family has used that state - in 1988, and in 2000 - to effectively firewall their closest opponents into burnt burger meat, this is a telling sign of both their family's political pull - none - in Far Right states and Jeb's overall terrible campaign style.

I was thinking Jeb would keep campaigning at least to Florida, in one last-ditch effort to win SOMETHING considering his own home state might help him, but reports are coming in right now that Jeb? is suspending his campaign. The zombie nightmare may well end... and the Trump nightmare keeps steamrolling along.

So, in short, Trump is dominating and dooming the Republicans, Jeb's out, Rubio is gonna become the Great GOP Hope for the next goddamn news cycle, Cruz is scheming, and Hillary is sitting somewhere in Vegas thinking "I can win with a straight over a full house, right?"

And it's not even March yet.

Update: just to clarify, Trump is pretty much claiming ALL - by winning the state as well as each county/congressional district - of the delegates South Carolina has to offer (50) leaving the Second/Third place "winners" Rubio or Cruz (they're too close to call STILL) with nothing to pin a "victory" on. And yet both Rubio and Cruz gave "victory" speeches avoiding the reality of the fact that Trump is gaining serious distance between himself and the rest of the horse race.

The pundits are going to point out that with Jeb out, the likelihood of his backers switching to Rubio as the best possible candidate vs. Trump will go up. But considering that Jeb had roughly 6-to-8 percent of the GOP voting base and that Trump is pretty much 10-to-12 points ahead of Rubio, Rubio's still not getting enough people out Jeb's departure. And if Kasich does stick it out at least until Ohio's primary (March 15) that is going to cut into Rubio's numbers.

Rubio's not gonna happen, media elites. I don't blame you for thinking he could - as Trump is a nightmare candidate - but he's not gonna save you.

Monday, November 02, 2015

Jeb? Can't Fix This

So here I am, trying to claim I won't go blogging this month of November because of my NaNoWriMo efforts - P.S. please visit the Writing page on here and support a fellow American by purchasing a few ebooks... ow stop hitting me, what, a guy can't market his ebooks out here? - and while I'm pretty good on my word count so far on the novel effort, I just had to come back and blog about this ridiculous hare-brained marketing idea that the Jeb? Bush people have decided to go with to relaunch their troubled campaign.

(If you're worried about poor sentence structure just now, relax, this happens a lot when you're rushing out a 50,000 writing project)

Anyway.  The Jeb* people have come out with a brand new slogan for their boy to campaign on:

Jeb Can Fix It

Cough.  Heh.  Heeehahaha.  Snerk.  Guffaw.  BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHHHAHAHA gasp wheeze HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAAAAA.

I am thinking back to that book about campaigning, the classic Selling of the President tome about the 1968 Nixon run for the White House.  Advertising is all about branding, about creating loyalty and love for a product, and intermixing that to political campaigning it means creating an identity for a politician that people can immediately use to picture who that candidate is and what he/she stands for.

Which is part of Jeb?'s problem right now.  His early attempts this 2015 to create an identity - starting off as The Front-Runner Establishment Guy that could not impress anybody, then as The Heir To the Bush Legacy by selling the "my brother Kept Us Safe" lie - have gone nowhere.

So here we are at Attempt Number Three to get Jeb><'s campaign "back on track"... by going with a quickie ebook release of materials - his political emails - already ten years old, and by crafting a slogan that sounds like someone watched Wreck-It Ralph or Bob The Builder too many times.

Just going by Twitter - a method of tracking the current mindset of the public awareness - this relaunch phrase is a disaster.

In a serious examination here: claiming that Jeb "can fix it" in a vague manner opens up that slogan to a myriad of interpretations.  It also allows for his critics to bring forth all the flaws and errors of his previous works - his broken promises as Governor, the sorry shape of the state of Florida as he left it, the terrible education record, his criminal repression of voting rights for minorities, his screwed involvement in the Election 2000 debacle, the Terri Schiavo fiasco...

Claiming Jeb "can fix it" while his poll numbers keep slipping is a joke of a premise, a disaster of a promise.

Trying to change a political persona this late in a campaign cycle after a public slide in voter confidence and support reeks of desperation.

And yet the Jeb? Bush Zombie Campaign slogs on.

Monday, October 19, 2015

Unraveling the Lies About Bush and 9/11

Let's state this first: Trump is a con artist.

Let us also state that a successful con artist is not only a good liar, he knows how and when to mix in a troubling fact (more than truth) in order to convince his audience he's not (always) a liar.  It helps to make that truth-based-on-facts statement even when it costs him nothing to say it, or that it could cost him something (that he's willing to trade off for a bigger scam later).  The suckers would view it as a sign of integrity.

Hence, Trump's weekend endeavor to undermine his primary opponent Jeb Bush's foundation.  Jeb had been campaigning - haphazard and unconvincing - about being the legacy heir to his older brother George W. Bush's administration.  Jeb is trying to trade off on the meme that Dubya "kept us safe" during and after the terror attacks on September 11, 2001.

During a discussion about foreign policy with Bloomberg News, Trump nuked Jeb's position from orbit (via Digby at Salon.com):

This past weekend, the Donald finally pushed a button that was too much for Jeb to bear: He made the factual observation that Jeb’s brother had been president on 9/11. Well, all hell broke loose, as every GOP establishment figure rose up in untamed fury that Trump would be rude enough to bring such a thing up. Why, that’s sacrilege...

For a day, Trump ignored the follow-up questions and Twitter outrage over his statement.  And then Trump swung around with another punch saying (link to CNN):

...He took another shot at Jeb Bush for claiming that Bush's brother, the 43rd president, kept the nation safe.
"I'm not blaming George Bush," Trump said. "But I don't want Jeb Bush to say, 'My brother kept us safe,' because September 11 was one of the worst days in the history of this country."
It wasn't just on the Sunday shows that Trump attacked Bush over his brother's tenure.
On Twitter, as the "Fox News Sunday" interview aired, Trump tweeted: "Jeb, why did your brother attack and destabalize the Middle East by attacking Iraq when there were no weapons of mass destruction? Bad info?"

Here's the thing: Trump's attacks are not only against Jeb and not only against George W., the attacks are against the entire neoconservative narrative surrounding 9/11.

The neoconservative movement had been wounded by the reality of their failure of policy covering Iraq, Afghanistan, the mistreatment of our allies, and their inability to stop or even contain remaining rogue nations like North Korea and Iran.  They still had their media allies, however, and those neocons kept arguing their points based on the Narrative that the neocons were the only strong and smart foreign policy experts on the market.

That Narrative is why the likes of Wolfowitz and Cheney still get invites to talk shows and private speaking events.  That Narrative is why the Republican Party itself is still dominated by neocons on foreign policy matters, to the point where the neocons are the party Establishment.

And the modern Republican Party is more about Narrative - the outrage, the disconnect about fear-mongering and war-mongering, sticking to their talking points instead of enacting policy - than anything.  Unravel the Narrative for the lies that make it, and you unravel the party.

As noted over on The Atlantic by Peter Beinart, the neocon Narrative about 9/11 has always hidden the real disasters and miscues that happened under George W.:

(Trump's) latest ugly truth came during a Bloomberg TV interview last Friday, when he said George W. Bush deserves responsibility for the fact that “the World Trade Center came down during his time.”
Politicians and journalists erupted in indignation. Jeb Bush called Trump’s comments “pathetic.” Ben Carson dubbed them “ridiculous.”
Former Bush flack Ari Fleischer called Trump a 9/11 “truther.” Even Stephanie Ruhle, the Bloomberg anchor who asked the question, cried, “Hold on, you can’t blame George Bush for that.”
Oh yes, you can. There’s no way of knowing for sure if Bush could have stopped the September 11 attacks. But that’s not the right question. The right question is: Did Bush do everything he could reasonably have to stop them, given what he knew at the time? And he didn’t. It’s not even close...
...During that same time period, the CIA was raising alarms too. According to Kurt Eichenwald, a former New York Times reporter given access to the Daily Briefs prepared by the intelligence agencies for President Bush in the spring and summer of 2001, the CIA told the White House by May 1 that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist attack. On June 22, the Daily Brief warned that al-Qaeda strikes might be “imminent.”
But the same Defense Department officials who discounted Clarke’s warnings pushed back against the CIA’s. According to Eichenwald’s sources, “the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat...”
...Finally, on August 6, the CIA titled its Daily Brief: “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US.” The briefing didn’t mention a specific date or target, but it did mention the possibility of attack in New York and mentioned that the terrorists might hijack airplanes. In Angler, Barton Gellman notes that it was the 36th time the CIA had raised al-Qaeda with President Bush since he took office...

This is the real scandal - not Trump hitting Jeb and George - in all of this: we still haven't resolved the glaring failure of leadership of the previous Bush administration when it came to handling legitimate terror threats.  And now Jeb is touting that failure as a success he can build on to be President himself.

It's already had an effect: Jeb has gotten questions about his attempts to compare 9/11 to Benghazi - trying to paint his brother George as effective and triumphant and Obama/Hillary as complicit criminals - and was unable to reply well.  As noted by Amanda Marcotte, also at Salon:

...Bush’s weakness on this front was embarrassingly evident in a weekend interview on CNN with Jake Tapper, where he tried to blame Hillary Clinton for the four deaths in Benghazi because “had a responsibility at the Department of State to have proper security” but then denied that his brother had any responsibility for the 3,000 deaths on 9/11, because, “It’s what he did afterwards that matters.”
In other words, if you’re a Democrat, you are obligated to prevent violence, but if you’re a Republican, there is no obligation to maintain security so long as you wear flight suits after thousands of people die horrible deaths on your watch. Tapper pointed out that this is a double standard, but Bush’s response seemed more petulant that somber in the face of so much tragedy...
In short: Jeb can't defend his brother's mishandling of 9/11 and attack Hillary - the likely Democratic nominee in 2016 - about Benghazi (and the Republican obsession about that is another scandal backfiring on them, but I digress) without coming across as a hypocrite or an idiot.

This is in some respects a brilliant move by Trump.  He's in the lead in polling by comfortable margins.  Fox Not-News CAN'T ignore him, nor any other media outlet right now.  He can afford in some respects to take the hit from outraged neocons: partly because the neocons are themselves more discredited in the reality-based world than he is, but mostly because at this moment the GOP primary base is more aligned to Trump than to the neocons who are viewed as the Establishment wing.

Trump's own foreign policy stances are troubling, if not insane and offensive: He himself argues that 9/11 wouldn't have happened on "his" watch because his anti-immigrant policies would have stopped the terrorists from even being here.  But he can attack Jeb and his neocon allies on this matter and - so far - get away with it, because as a true Outsider of the GOP he's not tainted by their disasters.  He's able to critique the failures of Bush the Lesser - as a means of kicking the platform Jeb is standing on to knock his likeliest opponent out of the game - because he was never part of them.

This is a fight long overdue, not because it hadn't been happening - Democrats have been attacking the Republicans and the neocons in particular for these failures for years - but because this is now a fight within the Republican ranks itself.  Republicans and their media partners could shrug off Democratic complaints as mere rants by conspiracy-driven hippie libruls.  Not now, not with the top-polling candidate for 2016 breaking out the "Truther" chainsaw on themselves.

Thing is, going after the neocons is a risky move.  These guys do not play fair or selective: we're talking about a group of know-nothings who bullied every critic they had between 2001 to 2006 out of office and ruined reputations of anyone who crossed them.  They even broke laws and scuttled CIA covert ops doing so.  Granted, Trump is shameless enough and rich enough that he may be untouchable, but I guarantee you that the knives are coming out for this alley fight.  Trump is pissing on neocon turf, and they don't take kindly to that level of disrespect.

This is going to get messy.

Saturday, October 17, 2015

The Jeb Campaign Zombie Apocalypse

(Update below)

In some respects, this thing will not die.

Jeb Bush started his campaign to buy out to serve as yet another Bush President with all the positives: He had the political pull behind the scenes; He had the financial backers in his pocket; He had the marquee name that still had some value among Republicans at least, and the ability to buy off everyone else with shaky memories about 2001 to 2008.

Jeb Bush was supposed to be the front-runner right now.  Jeb Bush was supposed to rally the Republican base and inspire the Establishment.

Instead, the calls for Jeb to stop campaigning increase by the day.  Even Far Right blogs are in "countdown to corpse" mode.

How bad is it getting?

Jeb's campaign spent millions in an ad push in New Hampshire.  The Politico reports that after $4.8 million spent in-state and taking up 60 percent of ad time on television, Jeb's polling numbers there dropped from 9 percent to 8.7 percent.

Money is not buying votes like it used to.

How bad is it really getting?

Donald Trump, savoring the safe spot of a polling lead across the board, just attacked Jeb's campaign position about how brother George W. "kept us safe" during a TV interview:

..."When you talk about George Bush, I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time," Trump said on Bloomberg TV.
Bloomberg anchor Stephanie Ruhle interjected, "Hold on, you can't blame George Bush for that," before Trump stood by his comments.
"He was president, OK? ... Blame him, or don't blame him, but he was president. The World Trade Center came down during his reign," Trump said...

Jeb tried to punch back, arguing that Dubya did "keep us safe."  It may yet hurt Trump among the primary voters, but so far nothing has put a dent in Trump's push.  And it doesn't look like Jeb is convincing a lot of folks of that whole "safe" thing.  If Trump can successfully convince enough GOP primary voters that Jeb's narrative over 9/11 is wrong...  Jeb has nothing left to sell.  He won't even be able to use his own family as a crutch or marketing point.

Over the last two weeks, I've been fighting with myself with the urge to write a "What If" scenario where "What if Jeb wins the nomination?"  I keep tripping over it because the scenario only works one way: when Trump implodes - it's still a likelihood - AND (this is important) if Jeb can convince enough primary voters to put him back into double-digit polling numbers.

It's that last part after the AND that I can't reconcile to reality.  It just does not look like Jeb is winning over the base.

They're not impressed anymore.  It used to be the front-runner would rack up all the endorsements and the campaign funding and the primary voters would fall into line and back the "right" guy because all the narrative and political muscle is behind him.  That's changed.  The Republican base has found a horse to back that doesn't need the Establishment and can pander to them just as well as the mainstream candidate(s).

The only sane reason for Jeb to stay in this race is the hope - which is growing more doubtful the closer we get to the real primary season - that when Trump is expected to implode - or the Republican Establishment force him to implode - someone credible in the party has to be there to pick up the pieces and win the nomination next July.

But even that is looking less likely.  If Trump goes, there's still Ben Carson sitting there in the Number Two slot as the next Amateur Candidate.  There's still Carly Fiorina in the mix as the third Amateur.  And then there's Marco Rubio, either polling even or ahead of Jeb as the most "credible" candidate the primary voters would like.

All the sane reasons aren't there for Jeb.  Only the insane reasons are left.

Jeb is now running on pride.  Having seen his father become President... Having his rival older brother become President... Jeb wants his turn in the big chair.  That's all he's got to motivate him.  Actually winning no longer seems possible.  Quitting now would be a terrible admission of failure coming from a man - from a family - who can never admit it.

He's also likely convinced himself he's the only hope the Republican Party has of stopping Trump before his nativist bull-in-a-chinashop routine wrecks everything for the party brand.  He's not: he's really one of several opportunists - Rubio, Cruz, Huckabee, Kasich - waiting for the amateur trio of Trump/Carson/Fiorina to lose their audiences, waiting for a miracle to wash the usurpers into the sea.

An early advantage he had - the fund-raising - might be slowing up and does nothing against a deep-pocket candidate like Trump, but he does have enough money on hand to crawl along into the primary rounds.  Given his lousy performance stirring up supporters to vote, however, Jeb may not see enough delegates distributed to him to force a brokered convention.  Right now, there's no way he can secure the Winner-Take-All states like his home state of Florida that could clinch the delegate count.

We are bearing witness to the first of its kind: the Zombie campaign.  A political operation promoting an unliked and unhappy candidate all the way to a Finish line that campaign has no hope of reaching first.  It's already being declared dead before the starting pistol goes off, yet the person(s) behind it are either deluded or desperate to think the campaign can win.

We've had long campaigns before go to the wire, but those were races between candidates who still had a hope.  The race between Obama and Hillary in 2008 comes to mind.  There, the race did indeed go back and forth until June, when the superdelegate count turned for Obama.

This is not the same situation.  Trump right now looks unbeatable and if he keeps a double-digit lead on Jeb in particular well into January he can well win the nomination (insert scream of terror here).  That poll I linked to: right now Trump is polling 24 percent, Jeb is at 8 percent.  TRUMP IS TRIPLE THE COUNT on Jeb.  If Trump even stays about 20 percent heading into January 2016, Dear GOD there is no sign Jeb can catch up.

We can't really call the other candidates zombies just yet.  None of them were expected to be front-runners in 2016.  Many of them - Graham, Jindal, Paul, Christie, Santorum, the other non-percenters - are just as easily expected to drop out.  It's just none of the remaining likely names - Rubio, Cruz, Huckabee, Kasich - are campaigning with serious and open wounds the way Jeb has.  Well, Huckabee keeps dropping the most offensive crap outside of Trump's press releases: but the Huckster wasn't expected to make it to Cleveland anyway.

I doubt Jeb will drop out - not until it's clear he can't win - and even then he'll try something - his people or backers will try something - to rig the rules again to favor him.  The only thing I can see is him trying to rig the balloting somehow: However, that would mean rigging the polls first so that there's no discrepancy to make people question the results.  And if Jeb hasn't rigged the polling by now, I can't see how he can rig the ballots.

So we're stuck, because he's now a zombie running a dead campaign.  Wasting all that Citizens United money.  Wasting ad space and people's attention spans.

Removing Trump is not going to change this.  Fighting Rubio for more funding is not going to change this.  Everyone out there is immune to Zombie Jeb's bite.

It'd be funny if it weren't so scary in a multitude of ways.

Update: I am not the only one making the Zombie Jeb Bush comparison.

Friday, October 02, 2015

Jeb? Just Ain't Campaigning As the Smart One Anymore... (update)

(Update below)
In the wake of the tragic shooting in Oregon yesterday, the instinctive response for the gun-worshiper types is to argue that "no one could have predicted" the fact that we've got mass shootings on a near-daily basis.  Or even worse they would argue "if we had laws in place the bad guys would still get guns and kill people."

They love that second one.  Given most of the gun-worshipers are Far Right Republicans - I will grant there are a few librul tree-huggers who lock and load - that "regulating of guns" fits their Randian Libertarian narrative of "laws are too restrictive and government shouldn't be nagging us".

It's a script. It's been worked out for decades now.  For someone to go off-script would be a foolish and reckless endeavor...

Jeb Bush in South Carolina argued against calls for greater gun control on Friday, saying “stuff happens.”

...oh sweet f-cking Jebus.

Look, I'll admit I am not a fan of The Jeb*.  He's been on my "Oh Hell No" list since 1994 when he did something during his first (failed) gubernatorial attempt that personally offended me.  But for him to just flatly say "Stuff Happens" after a tragedy that claimed nine innocents and injured as many more, on a topic where more and more Americans are outraged by the inaction against gun violence...  It's the tone-deaf attitude he projects that is just killing his campaign.

If you watch the interview clip and the follow-up with the press, Jeb^ just isn't even in this, he's stammering and jumping around on his logic.


He even tries to bring up examples of "impulsive regulations" by arguing about safety fences around pools, as though keeping young children from drowning is a step too far.

Gawker even points out how bad an argument this can get for TEH SMART BUSH:

After challenging a reporter to tell him “what I said wrong,” The New York Times reports, Bush clarified that he meant “Things happen all the time. Things. Is that better?”
Not really, but that didn’t stop him from going into detail about what he meant by “Look, stuff happens. There’s always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something, and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”
“A child drowned in a pool and the impulse is to pass a law that puts fencing around pools,” he said, “Well it may not change it. Or you have a car accident and the impulse is to pass a law that deals with that unique event. And the cumulative effect of this is, in some cases, you don’t solve the problem by passing the law, and you’re imposing on large numbers of people burdens that make it harder for our economy to grow, make it harder to protect liberty.”
A liberty-eroding, people-burdening law about pool fences is an oddly specific example. I wonder if any state has ever actually passed such a --
(quoting another source, the Sun-Sentinel from 2000) After the House voted 109-8 for the bill on Friday, Preston met Gov. Jeb Bush, who committed to signing a bill that requires new pool owners to pick a way to keep unsupervised children out of the water.
Oh.
That's right, folks: Jeb# cannot remember the safety regs he himself signed as a Republican governor.  Granted, a lot of us can't even remember the breakfasts we had three days ago, but you'd think he'd have reviewed his own record somewhere and reminded himself "oh hey, here's a topic about government regulating I might wanna avoid later."

Here's another thing: that liberty-eroding law of putting up safety fences around pools happened to help contribute to a nine percent drop in fatal drownings overall, and for infants it dropped by 45 percent.

'Cause here's the weird thing about safety regulations: they are meant to save lives.  Hence the whole idea of "well-regulating" firearms as a safety issue for millions of Americans who DO NOT WANT TO GET SHOT.

For Jeb>< to bring up sensible regs as an argument against "liberty" - as though freedom requires risking life and limb for yourself or others on an hourly basis - is one of the dumbest things he could have done at an ill-advised time and using the worst talking points to do so.

Let's be honest, Republicans: Jeb? Bush is an overrated, stumbling moron.  He's starting to make Rick "Oops" Perry look like a Mensa member.

There's a reason why the Establishment candidate is polling in fifth place now in some polls.  Well, actually there's several: being an idiot is one of them.

Update: I've been seeing more comparisons of Jeb(ish) online today to a particular character on The West Wing:


The show got a lot of hype from the fact they predicted Barack Obama's win by basing Matt Santos on him.  At the time they created Bob Ritchie - a Florida governor - as Bartlet's opponent for the re-election cycle, the belief was that they based Ritchie on Dubya.  Who knew they had the Florida Bush brother and not the Texan one right all along?

When you look back on this Jeb, "Stuff Happens" is when a majority of Americans decided to kick your ass.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Getting Jeb's Character Wrong. He Might Be Worse

I may have been wrong about Jeb Bush in one regard.

He doesn't seem to be all that Active-Negative as I thought.

What I originally wrote previewing his character:

...The Active part is pretty clear: similar to Bush the Elder's Active traits of carving out a successful business via challenges confronted and won, and taking the wonky issues of leadership - the homework, the consultations with advisors - more serious than Dubya did.  The Negative part is the difference between son and father, however: whereas Bush the Elder had a more Positive view of political engagement - bipartisan working with Congress, dealing on equal terms with foreign leaders, backroom deals that got things done - Jeb's track record as Governor shows a Compulsive, confrontational style of leadership similar to many of the Baby Boomer generation that dominated the GOP from 1992 onward...
...The guy can pander to the base as well as anyone, especially on the socio-religious issues that drive the modern Republican Party.  This is someone as an Active-Negative Character who will fight hard for what he wants...

Well, I am wrong on the pandering part.  Oh, Jeb! is trying to pander, but he's not doing a very good job of it.  And that last bit - "who will fight hard for what he wants" - that is proving to be very off-target.  From the Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky:

Here’s a thought experiment for you. Imagine you could find a person who didn’t know 1) who Jeb Bush was or 2) what pursuit he was involved in. You showed the person a video clip of a Bush press conference or speech, but with the sound turned down, and you asked the person, just based on the expression on Bush’s face and the hang of his shoulders and whatnot, where is this man, and what is he doing?
I think your person would say something like: “Well...he looks like he’s at a funeral. Attending the funeral of a friend’s mother. Or maybe not even a friend. Maybe a co-worker, or employee. He didn’t know the woman. But he’s there, because he needs to be...
...On some level, politics is all about the gene. John Ellis doesn’t have it. No zest. No happy warrior thing going on at all. Say what you will about Dubya, and trust me, I said most of it at one time or another. But he had the gene. He liked politics. He enjoyed campaigning. He pinned his shoulders back up on stage, stood erect, gazed upon the crowd with something you might call command. Remember that smirk? Oh God how liberals hated that smirk!...
...But Jeb. Yeesh. What’s he doing out there? It’s just duty. And not family duty either. Remember, his mom said he shouldn’t do it. His wife seems cool on it. At best. So it’s not family. It’s mostly party duty. Duty to the money people. Class duty.

When I saw that word "duty" crop up in Tomasky's article I cringed.  It's a dead giveaway.  Because in Professor Barber's Character traits for Presidents, Duty is a signature trait (along with Withdrawn) for Passive-Negatives, not A-Ns.  To quote Barber:

The answer lies in the Passive-Negative's character-rooted orientation towards doing dutiful service... Passive-Negative types are in politics because they think they ought to be... (Presidential Character 4th ed., p.10)

Jeb! is primarily in politics because of the family name: generations worth of Bushes from Prescott to Bush the Elder to older brother Dubya.  Jeb won the governorship of Florida (on his second try) at a time the state was solidly Republican, and even though he tried to hide his last name everyone in state knew where he came from.  In hindsight his campaigning showed little innovation or risky stances: It was mostly a thing of fait accompli.

But now Jeb! is running outside of a comfort zone.  Whereas state politics can be easy to blunder through an election running on few issues or controversies where the party machine can prop you up and run everything for you, a national-level campaign - especially for THE glamour job on the planet, President of the United States and Leader of the Free World - requires more interaction with, you know, people.

And Jeb is running in an election cycle where all of the old rules no longer apply.  Ironies abound: the opening up of campaign funding rules (Citizens United) that gives Jeb the ability to fund-raise with little effort (he only thing he's done right) also gave a lot of more ambitious Republican candidates the wiggle room to put themselves on the ballot and find a Sugar Daddy SuperPAC to help keep them afloat long enough to carve out a big enough piece of the delegate pie.

Jeb! is clearly the Establishment candidate but the Far Right voters no longer tolerate their own party's leadership (having been abused on broken promises and failures over abortion and immigration and their culture war).  In an earlier election cycle, he'd be facing maybe three or four rivals and using his back-room deep-pocket connections to make short work of them.  This election cycle he's facing seven or eight legitimate threats with three of them genuine alternatives as Establishment figures: Jeb is also facing genuine anti-Establishment figures as threats as well, almost unseen in Republican (or Presidential) politics since the Sixties.  And all of those threats carry with them enough voter support and outrage to prevent Jeb from winning those voters over to his side: he's running weak from the very start since he's nowhere near the dominant support previous Establishment candidates carried (compare to Romney's 2012 support where he was double - 25 percent - his closest rival in July 2011).

I thought that Jeb! was Active-Negative because I saw personal ambition in him to succeed but I misinterpreted how that applied to political skill.  I saw Jeb! pander often to the base - especially over voter suppression of minorities, breaking up public schools to benefit religious private schools, and the Schiavo fiasco - but never accounted how the base still felt betrayed by Jeb's poor handling of each case.  I also thought Jeb! was A-N because everyone else in the Republican Party is pretty much A-N all over the place (even trying to call a "successful" governor like Kasich an Active-Positive is a reach) due to a party platform that is increasingly anti-government, self-restricting and reactionary.

I knew Jeb! was going to have a rough run trying to convince Republican primary voters to back him.  I just never realized Jeb would be so miserable at the attempt.

Some of the signs were there.  The fact that Jeb! is this election cycle's Mitt Romney, whom I also tabbed P-N back in 2012 because he was campaigning on a low-energy, low-enthusiasm, Just-Give-Me-My-Crown platform.  Mitt was going through the motions, surviving only because his primary opponents had severe flaws compared to him and fell out (Perry was a legitimate threat polling into the high 30s in late 2011 until he brain-farted).  When it came time to run against a solid general election opponent in Obama (Active-Positive), Romney couldn't compete as well, and his messaging wasn't aimed at the people he needed to win over (regular middle-income American voters).

Jeb! is the same way.  Jeb's body language and speaking tone reflect a man who expected no challenges to his rule and is wondering why he has to put in the effort to impress anyone anymore.  He wants his gold crown by right of birth and social standing.

Jeb keeps demonstrating a tone-deafness for the public audience.  His private audience - his circle of backers and allies - clearly speak the same upper-income upper-class language, but with the lower classes that make up the voting base Jeb is just not making any connections at all.  His attempts to pander fail because someone else got to that audience first with the same promises with a louder voice and greater enthusiasm (guess who).

How is this worse?  For Jeb, it's not a good thing to be in a campaign field crowded with A-Ns he's trying to mimic.  Where he's trying to fake it, more pure agitators like Trump and Cruz are gaining ground and support.  Where he's trying to present himself experienced as a leader, he's getting supplanted by political amateurs like Carson and Trump (again).  Where he's trying to sound rational, he's getting drowned out by irrational demagogues like Huckabee and Trump (third time's a trend).

There are reasons why Trump is beating Jeb! in the polls - in some polls by triple the numbers - and half of it has to do with Trump being more ambitious, more vocal, more intense.  Trump is openly calling Jeb a "low-energy person" with all that implies (in other words Trump would use: "loser").  And Jeb's responses are not landing any blows on Trump's campaign (or even on Trump's Id).

(The other half of the reason Trump is winning - unrelated to Jeb's unforced errors - is because there is a genuine voter revolt underway among the GOP base, which is why Trump and Carson and Cruz and Fiorina and maybe Huckabee are thriving while "Establishment" candidates like Jeb and Walker and Rubio and Kasich and Perry are floundering).

This is why it's worse for the rest of us.

Even if you hate Jeb Bush, he does represent a political methodology of governance that at least respects the process, respects the system.  It may abuse that system for its own self-interests, but the respect remains.  Trump's movement - as well as the other anti-Establishment candidates surfing in Trump's growing wake - is all bluster and bullying and bulldozing.  Their methodology of governance is predicated on forcing their opinions on the facts and to damn the consequences: ill-thought-out positions that do not reflect the realities of what a majority of Americans want and need.

It's a bad situation: a "better the devil you know" false choice between an Establishment candidate like Jeb who likely pander to the Far Right but still keep the bare basics of our Constitution intact, over a rabble-rouser like Trump who would knock everything off their foundations if it meant scoring personal (either self-profiting or ideological) victories.

Even as a Passive-Negative, Jeb would be bad as President because he will be rising to the office of the Presidency at a bad time for the nation.  It has to do with that Passive aspect of the character: Jeb will not be a natural leader in office.  The decisions will most likely not come from him, but will come from either his allies or from his mental projection of what he is expected to do.

Previous P-Ns came to office under more favorable surroundings.  Washington was surrounded by other men whose ambitions and goals were towards the construction of a new form of government, which meant things would work.  Coolidge was promoted into the office during a period of national growth where little was expected out of the Presidency (he also presided over a period of inaction against the rot that would lead into the Great Depression).  Eisenhower came into a post-war period with a citizenry used to a New Deal system that kept the engines of our nation churning even though Ike did little (outside of a massive construction project called the Interstate Highway).

In today's political environment any Passive figure - either Positive or Negative - would be disastrous.  Passives let themselves get stepped on or tricked by more ambitious Active staffers under their authority.  The modern Republican party is made up of either con artists - those who would seek to deregulate every safety rule for profit, and then induce massive tax cuts for the rich for even more - or hard-core ideologues - those who would seek a social conservative agenda against gay marriage and women's health rights, or would seek neoconserative foreign follies that would once again alienate our allies, invade more countries, and bankrupt our coffers and soldiers.

If Jeb wins as a Passive-Negative he is bound to bring in both types to staff his administration and dictate policies.  As an Active-Negative he still would - that is the nature of the modern Republicans - but at least as an A-N he could mitigate or limit the free-range damage a Passive would allow: Think of the damage that happened under the careless watch of Grant or Harding or Dubya.

And it's starting to look as though Jeb! is losing the Establishment cred as well: Politico reports three heavy backers have abandoned him as his polling slides into single digits in various polls.

Either way, Jeb Bush shouldn't be elected President.  He may act like he wants it, but he doesn't.  He certainly doesn't deserve to be President.

Monday, August 24, 2015

In the Jeb! Said What? Category Today (And It's August 2015)

Caught over the weekend using the derogatory term "anchor babies" to rail against immigration, Jeb Bush spent today trying to clarify what he actually meant by that (quote via Washington Post):

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush on Monday dismissed the controversy surrounding his use of the term “anchor baby” during a visit to this U.S.-Mexico border town, saying that he merely used the term to describe instances in which non-Americans abuse the law to gain citizenship for their children, and that it is more prevalent among Asians.
“What I was talking about was the specific case of fraud being committed where there is organized efforts — and frankly it’s more related to Asian people — coming into our country, having children in that organized effort, taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship,” Bush told reporters during a press conference at Palenque Grill in McAllen (TX).

So... Jeb! is taking a term that applies often to Hispanic families coming into the United States - legally as well as illegally - and applying them to other ethnic groups - Chinese, Japanese, Indian - that deals with the same amount of racist hostility from Caucasian-American a-holes.

Interestingly enough, the insult "anchor baby" originally applied to Vietnamese refugees coming to the United States after the fall of South Vietnam in the 1970s.  So in a way Jeb! is kind of right.  He's just still incredibly racist about it.

Jeb! has pretty much insulted two massive ethnic voting blocs - even as they are in reality culturally diverse within their own ranks - with one blow.  The tone-deafness of this act points to two things: 1) Jeb! really doesn't know how to campaign on a national stage, and 2) The point-of-view of the epistemic bubble Jeb! lives in does not look kindly upon ANY ethnic group that's not rich and Eurocentric.

At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if Jeb! goes out of his way to insult Greek-Americans next.  I would love to see Jeb! burned in effigy along the streets of Tarpon Springs FL.

This is your Republican Party, America: even the "Establishment" candidates are talking the language of hate and discrimination.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

It's JEB! The Musical

Remember how I griped about the bad logo idea Hillary Clinton's people decided to use for marketing their 2016 campaign?

Leave it to her main competitor Jeb "Third Time's The Charm" Bush to go even sillier.  Per Balloon Juice, it's:

Via Huffington Post tweet.
The comments on Balloon Juice have gotten pretty snarky.  Then again, it's not a Bush-friendly blog over there.

Oliver Willis over on his Twitter account noted how it's the same damn logo Jeb! used back in 1998 for his governorship run: "jeb couldn't even be bothered to come up with a new logo for his presidential run?"

For me, it comes down to just one thing: BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I have to admit there's a bunch of other peeps on the tweets who are thinking the same thing I am: this is just the banner title of a brand new off-off-Broadway musical: Jeb!

Ah yes, the brand new crowd favorite of old old rehashed Republican campaign platitudes: Cut taxes!  Cut Social Security!  Invade the same countries again!  With hit songs guaranteed to win Tonys and Grammys as the nation gets marched over the cliffs of Republican doom!

The fans will rave to such hit tunes as "Blame It On The Willie," "Invading Iraq (A Father's Lament)," "In Grover's Bathtub," "How Low to Death Row/Pretending To Be Hard On Crime," "Who Needs Voters/Purging the Rolls," "Invading Iraq (A Brother's Lament)," "To All The Schiavos I've Humiliated Before," "Making Money On The Last Name," "I Can't Run On The Last Name," "The Recession That Killed Our Legacy," "How Obama Ruined My Brother's War," "Who Invited Fifteen Clowns To My Coronation," and the show-stopping finale "Invading Iraq (Third Reprise)."

Puts me in the mood to make more Honest Bumper Stickers, but I'm nowhere near my graphics editing program at the moment.  I'll save that for tomorrow.

In the meanwhile, BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Monday, April 06, 2015

Either It's Another Crazy Day in Florida, or Jeb Bush Is Just That Desperate

Dear Jeb Bush:

Why?

Former Florida Gov.  Jeb Bush (R) listed himself as "Hispanic" in a 2009 voter registration form, The New York Times reported Monday.
The Times posted its copy of the registration online, and the expected presidential candidate appears to have filled out the Hispanic circle next to the "race/ethnicity" field.
"A Bush spokeswoman could offer no explanation for the characterization," the paper's Alan Rappeport wrote.


A follow-up comment from Jeb's spokesperson labeled this as a paperwork error, that the wrong checkbox was selected.  That is likely, as the Hispanic box is next to the White box on the ethnicity row on the registration form.

And for additional consideration, Bush did marry a Hispanic woman and in a way his own family can consider themselves Hispanic.  But Jeb himself, the scion of WASP parents with enough Anglo heritage to be whiter than Wonder bread, does not count.

What's potentially telling is how Jeb Bush has been maneuvering the political stage to make himself not only the Establishment candidate for the Republicans in 2016, he's been positioning himself as the "appeal" to Hispanic voters that the Republicans desperately need to actually win the general election (as it stands, Hispanic distaste of the GOP's anti-immigrant platform ensures that at a national level the Republicans will not win the White House in the next election cycle).

Dudebro, lemme just point out one thing.  You, Jeb Bush, are NOT pretty fly for a white guy.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Predicting Character: The Sins of Jeb Bush

"Listen, I didn't grow up wanting to be President of the Unites States," said George W.
Jeb smiled wistfully.  "I did," he said.
"Yeah," his brother replied.  "You did."
- The Family: the real story of the Bush Dynasty by Kitty Kelley


My disdain for Jeb Bush comes from both personal dislike - I've never met him in person, but something he did once had a direct impact on me - and professional distrust.  I need to put this out here first, because I know I'm about to tear into Jeb as he puts himself out here as a Presidential candidate for the 2016 election.

This is my first go at emulating Professor James David Barber for predicting a person's Character as it applies to the office of the Presidency (at least in real time: I did a review of previous - and current - Presidents back in 2013).  As mentioned previously, the deal is to research a bit of the candidate's biography to find the core developments of their lives, the moments that teach them their world views and shapes their styles.  Once that's done, take that data and place it on the chart between Active-Passive and Positive-Negative to establish which trait - Active-Positive, Active-Negative, Passive-Positive, Passive-Negative - that candidate would be in the highest office in the land.

As far as biographies go, Jeb has a head start on a lot of the other Republican candidates: as a son of Bush the Elder and a brother of Bush the Lesser, he's in a sizable list of Presidential biographies.  Not as a main character, but casually popping up in the background.  Considering his place as a Bush with higher political ambitions than the governorship of Florida - if Jeb had won election in 1994 and used that to garner a second term in 1998, he'd have been the one running for the Presidency in 2000, not Dubya - he'd even gotten a few biographies of his own detailing his political rise and hopes for the White House.

A not-so-quick read of various works all point to established facts about Jeb's childhood and background: the second surviving child of a large brood, younger brother to first-born Dubya with whom he shared a sibling rivalry (ask any middle-born son what it's like to live under an older aggressive brother), following the footsteps of poppa by going to the same prep schools, taking a different college with U of Texas but making the effort to graduate quickly with high grades (whereas Dubya compelled himself to attend the Elder's alma mater Yale and couldn't achieve the same academic success), jumping into business with an eye to achieve success like dad did at that age.  Jeb in the process created the reputation as the more sober (literally), smarter brother, and worked towards his own successes while Dubya coasted on the edges of their father's success and connections.  It wasn't until 1994 when Jeb jumped at the chance to be governor of adopted state Florida - having moved there during his help on Bush the Elder's 1980 primary run - that Dubya's sibling rivalry instinct kicked in for him to try a run for Governor in Texas.

Dubya won in 1994.  Jeb did not.  While Jeb did win in 1998, it was "too soon" in terms of political ambition for Jeb to make that run for the Presidency that he desired for himself, and that the Bush children viewed as "revenge" for their father's humiliation at being a One-Termer, which gave the advantage to Dubya in 2000.  And we all saw how that ended.

One of those "what if" games about history is "what if Jeb had been the Bush running in 2000?  What would his administration have been like compared to his older brother's?"

The way things were in 2000, much of the administration would have been the same: Jeb would have likely selected the same people to serve as his Secretaries of the Cabinet.  The possible difference would have been at Vice-President: Jeb might not have relied on Cheney to run the Veepstakes (which ended up with Cheney choosing himself) the way Dubya relied on the Elder's inner circle to help him with the 2000 campaign.  Jeb may have looked for someone else, as he didn't need Cheney's "serious adult" reputation to help float his candidacy or balance the ticket.

But the administration itself, if Jeb had won (instead of relying on a broken electoral system that Jeb's governorship ironically oversaw that year), would have had a vastly different personality behind it than Dubya's Passive-Positive flavor: one that would be best classed as an Active-Negative.

The Active part is pretty clear: similar to Bush the Elder's Active traits of carving out a successful business via challenges confronted and won, and taking the wonky issues of leadership - the homework, the consultations with advisors - more serious than Dubya did.  The Negative part is the difference between son and father, however: whereas Bush the Elder had a more Positive view of political engagement - bipartisan working with Congress, dealing on equal terms with foreign leaders, backroom deals that got things done - Jeb's track record as Governor shows a Compulsive, confrontational style of leadership similar to many of the Baby Boomer generation that dominated the GOP from 1992 onward.

As Florida's Governor from 1998 to 2006, Jeb Bush's track record is pretty typical sticking to standard Republican issues: cutting of taxes, cutting of regulations on businesses, using the line-item veto to keep spending down.

His signature political policy agenda was education reform: which was essentially a constant never-ending push to create school voucher programs and establishing business-run charter schools.  On vouchers, Bush's efforts were ruled unconstitutional as the courts found the vouchers took public funds and allowed them to go to religious institutions in violation of the concepts behind Separation of Church and State (in both federal and state constitutions).  On charter schools, Florida has allowed them since Jeb's tenure, but scandal and failure haven't yet shown them to work any better than the already-undersupported public schools anyway.

Jeb's insistence on privatizing education is part of the Active-Negative view that government itself is restrictive or the problem.  Previous A-N Presidents like Jackson, Cleveland, or Hoover would have expressed similar anti-government, pro-business, self-limiting sympathies.  Active-Negative types confront issues their own way, and when the issue doesn't go their way they ignore or sabotage the issue.  When state voters supported an amendment referendum capping class sizes - which meant more teachers and school rooms needed to be budgeted - Jeb fought it, did little to implement it and left behind a like-minded GOP legislature that's done nothing to enforce the requirements.

The clearest sign of any Presidential candidate's Character - the world view, the personality, the style - is how they respond to crisis: how quick they are to engage it, how adaptive or restrictive they are to finding a solution to the crisis, how to follow-up the crisis to ensure results.  For Jeb, the most notable crisis of his governorship was the Terri Schiavo case.

Terri was a young married woman who in 1990 collapsed from a near-fatal heart stoppage that still leaves her in a coma.  Her husband paid for surgeries and treatments but Terri remains in the "persistent vegetative state."  By 1998 her husband petitions to have her feeding tube removed, to let her die.  Terri's parents fight him on the matter, and the fight gets not only into the courts but it gets into the political arena.  Terri's parents argued on the matter as a pro-life issue, which brought in the interests of the Far Right in Florida - and national - politics.  Eventually this matter got all the way to the state legislature and the governor's office.

How did Jeb handle this?

He backed the parents all the way.  Jeb ignored repeated doctors' evaluations that Terri's brain was too far destroyed being in the vegetative state.  He helped pushed laws to intervene directly in what should have been a private family court battle.  It got to where Jeb came close to ordering in state police to seize Terri from the hospital she was residing (which could have led to a police-on-police shootout).  And in the end, Jeb pushed for a criminal investigation into allegations that Terri's husband staged her collapse (basically accusing him of manslaughter), for what looked to be sheer spite.

A lot of that reads like the gameplan of a typical Active-Negative.

Despite Jeb's attempts to convince his media buddies that he's the “smart” Bush, to convince them he's a “moderate” or bipartisan on key issues, and worse having gotten them to bite on his hook of being an education reformer, he's really none of those things.  His track record hasn't been reform it's been redirection: redirecting tax cuts to businesses, redirecting state funds from public schools to private pockets, redirecting personal issues to partisan exploitation.


The guy can pander to the base as well as anyone, especially on the socio-religious issues that drive the modern Republican Party.  This is someone as an Active-Negative Character who will fight hard for what he wants.

God help us.

So what kind of expectations is Jeb jumping into, the external forces that will shape his responses to the campaign (and to the possibility of being in the Oval Office)?

He's expected to reflect the “establishment” aspect of the Republicans, primarily a pro-business platform. Most likely pushing a tax-cut and deregulation economic agenda. Here's the problem: the GOP itself is more beholden to the Tea Party faction, which will be virulently anti-immigration, anti-Obamacare, and won't care about education as an issue outside of censoring the history and science textbooks.  Despite Jeb Bush's early attempts to position himself as a “safe” choice on immigration and education/domestic policies, he's going to have to survive a primary system against candidates - everyone from Santorum to Perry - tearing him down on those stances.

Jeb's odds of winning the nomination depends on three things: 1) how well he can pander to the base, which will love his pro-tax-cut kill-teachers-unions stance; 2) how much money he can raise to overwhelm the early primary states (which will be the easiest thing for him); 3) how quickly he can kill any television ad that shows a picture of him standing next to Dubya, or morphing into Dubya, or otherwise linking Jeb to one of the nation's worst administrations.

It also depends on which of the Active-Negatives dominating the modern GOP that might run against him does a better job of faking a public persona of Passive-Positive traits.  Jeb is going to try it: if Huckabee does run, he's done a better job of faking that persona and can well run circles around Jeb.

- - -

Works Used:
Date, SV. Jeb: America's Next Bush. New York: Penguin, 2007
Kelley, Kitty. The Family: the real story of the Bush dynasty. New York: Doubleday, 2004
Coburn, David. From Yellow Dog Democrats to Red State Republicans. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2007


Friday, January 02, 2015

It's Not 2016 Yet, Still Getting Primaried To Death

Posted with comment:

A sure sign that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is planning to do more than just “explore” a run for the White House in 2016 is the fact that he is severing ties, erasing connections and alliances that could “complicate” a presidential campaign.

Given the size and scope of Presidential campaigns anymore, and the massive costs generated by constant campaigning to fund all of it in the first place, we're pretty much into the first year of a two-year program to destroy our love of civics.

There will be more to post about Jeb's interest in destroying the United States after all the fun he had the first time he did in 2000, but for now all I gotta say is this: expect at least 20 80 more Republican hopefuls - the obvious disasters like Christ Christie and Scott Walker, the surprising gamblers like Bob Corker, the hopeless clowns like the two Ricks (Santorum and Perry) - to declare in the next few weeks, because it's all fund-raising at this point and the ones who get the most money the earliest gets the head start in Iowa.

Tuesday, April 01, 2014

You Were Warned This Was Coming

With all due respect to my seven readers, you knew this day would come.  Just not this day.

In order to counter the growing talk of having Jeb "Yet Another" Bush being the prospective Republican nominee for 2016, I have decided to jump ahead of schedule and make my candidacy for President of the United States official.

Yes, I may be starting too early.  Yes, this goes against my constant argument for keeping all electioneering within the actual year of the election itself.  But if my throwing of the tinfoil hat into the ring has the effect of convincing Jeb Bush that Florida is MINE, it should stop this insidious crazy talk about his nomination once and for all.

Now, the process itself still requires a few things... such as filing paperwork in all 50 states I need the vote (plus DC), getting petitions signed and notarized, and oh about maybe $2.4 billion in loose change to pay for the whole damn thing.

I expect to raise most of that through merchandising, such as getting t-shirts and postcards printed out via CafePress.  A lot of money should be rolling in via my upcoming political biography Always Sober Never Sane. (due on the thirteenth day of the thirteenth month)

As the excerpt from my epic memoir makes clear:

These are the thymes that dry men's underwear. The summer hammock and the sunshine parrot will, in this crisis, shrink from too much drying on High heat; but he that strands by it know, deserves the love and thanks of that guy over there and a couple other hangers-on. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily tropified although the editing process on that site is easy; yet we have this constellation with us, that the harder the armpit, the more glorious the deodorant. What we obscure too cheap, we esteem too brightly: it is doe a dearness a female dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods, usually at a fair market rate depending on the Dow; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated by Moody or Standards & Poor.

I figure on getting a seven-figure deal from a major publisher for it. Hell, I'm hoping for the FILM RIGHTS. (with George Clooney as the beleaguered campaign manager, Alexandra Daddario as the Secret Service agent assigned to protect me, and myself played by a CGI-created Yog-Soggoth)

And so, to the easy part: getting 50 million Americans to vote for me.

Right?

Why is everyone pointing at the date stamp on this blog entry and laughing their asses off?