And I Saw a Bush Rise Up Out of the Sea

Romney Accepts Party Nomination At The Republican National ConventionFrom frequent BWB contributor Charles Cullen

So the walls are coming down, the plane has finally crashed into the mountain, and Jeb Bush is running for President.

Ignoring the fact that this is very, very bad for Democrats, why not turn to the fascinating questions surrounding the viability of his Presidential campaign? To examine this question we must assume that Bush will be successful in the Republican primary.

Since I believe his success is relatively likely, given his donors and connections, I believe the question an interesting one. And certainly one worth asking. Will we, the populace, really elect a third Bush? We’re certainly stupid enough to do so (look at Bush II’s second election).

The looming spectacle of another Bush occupying the West Wing is made even more frightening by the facts that the public likes to switch parties after two terms (probably a healthy instinct, had one of our two major parties not driven right off the sanity-cliff). Bush almost certainly has Florida (root, root, root for the home-team, even if they’re implicated in ethics violations), and he has an ability no Republican challenger has had since Bush I; he seems pretty sane. Also, he may end up being challenged by a woman. If that woman is Hillary Clinton, I’m calling it: game, Bush. The strange national hatred of her has never disappeared. And she will be blamed—by both sides—for everything they didn’t like about Obama’s tenure.

We can’t ignore the fact that any woman, be it Warren, Clinton, you name her, would have a herculean task reaching the mountaintop of the presidency. Obama managed to win despite the disadvantage of not being white, but was assisted in both campaigns. First, it helped that Bush II was a walking disaster, enjoying his second term. Second, McCain offered a helping hand by abandoning his politics, going off the rails, and by choosing a living joke as his running mate. Are you outside your house? Can you see Russia?

palin-wink

As for Obama’s reelection campaign, I believe that the tape of Romney tossing aside the grubby cloak of the average Joe, and showing us his true colors as a sociopathic plutocrat was very helpful, if not essential. We must come to terms with the uncomfortable reality that Obama was elected because he is an exceptional politician, a magnificent orator, and much, much smarter than your average bear…and that he had quite a bit of help from the other side.

They were coming off a two term disaster president (of their own party) and simply couldn’t keep up with Obama. Nor could they stop shooting themselves in the foot, or for that matter old men in the face. If Obama’s tenure tricks us into thinking that black politicians will be treated pretty much the same as white politicians, then we as a Nation must pull our collective heads out of, well, the dark.

Politicians like Obama come along rarely and acknowledging that is essential to the Democratic Party. I suppose what I’m saying is that to vault the gender-gap we’re going to need another exceptional politician, and/or a foaming at the mouth crazy challenger. I’m talking TMZ catches Presidential hopeful eating live chickens crazy.

Ever met someone who thinks racism ended with Obama? Yeah? Well there are at least twice as many who think either that the gender gap has closed or that women are simply incapable of wielding the awesome power of the Presidency.

So what do we do? Do we, as a National Party unwillingly tasked with being the single sane party—the parental figure, if you will—in a two party system, simply take a noble knee and nominate Clinton to show that we’re serious about equality? Do we run Warren to make the same point and still (maybe) win? Is Warren, in fact, a more competitive option in the general election? She certainly isn’t in the primary. But I think we can all agree that primaries alone do not effective candidates make.

I rarely write articles posing questions to which I simply do not know the answer. Usually, I at least think I know the answer; know what’s in the last chapter of the book. Here I do not. What I do know is that the Democrats have been in power through President Obama for eight years. I know the populace likes to switch sides after some time, and I know that switching is the difference in states like Iowa, Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin. I know that for a woman to be elected to our highest office, we would need a politician of exceptional talent and character, and we would probably also need her Republican challenger to fumble the ball in the grand tradition of Romney and McCain.

I write this article because these are questions we need to ask ourselves. Will Jeb get out of the primary? Will he maintain his sanity throughout the campaign process? Will we run a woman against him, and if so, who? I’m not suggesting we shy away from our female candidates because we fear sexism. I am asking these questions because a Republican Presidency is not simply a set-back, it is a disaster.

Comments

  1. Burroughston Broch says:

    You wrote, “I know that for a woman to be elected to our highest office, we would need a politician of exceptional talent and character…” Please define exactly what you mean by “exceptional”, since it can mean either not typical, or it can mean unusually good.

  2. Burroughston Broch says:

    The author hasn’t responded after almost two days, so I assume he doesn’t intend to respond.

    Given the tone of his writing, he intends “exceptional” to mean unusually good. I would agree that both Ms. Clinton and Ms. Warren have exceptional talent, but neither has exceptional character. Ms. Clinton has flaunted her flawed character on the national scene for decades, beginning with the Rose Law Firm scandal, continuing through Monicagate, and extending through her performance as Secretary of State and as principal of the Clinton Foundation. Ms. Warren continues to claim she has native American ancestry even after her claim have been largely disproved; she used this claim to her and her employer’s advantage in academia.

    Those who are unfaithful in small matters will be unfaithful in large matters. The Democrats would be wise to offer a candidate with unusually good character, not Ms. Clinton or Ms. Warren.