Jeb's new campaign slogan yesterday got a rough reception. The good news is it trended on Twitter but the bad news is mostly as a punch line.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/jeb-can-fix-elections.html
I think this goes to the fact that his campaign from its inception has had this pink elephant in the room he can't avoid-his brother, former President George W. Bush.
This is why the campaign decided to call itself Jeb! This was the illusion that he honestly could achieve and distance from W at all.
Conservatives have tried to argue that Hillary has the same problem-that she like Jeb is another dynasty candidate. But I don't think there's a meaningful comparison.
First of all, the Clinton years are simply remembered much more favorably than the W years. The American people aren't adverse to electing two people form the same family per se-tow of our greatest Presidents both had the last name of Roosevelt.
This goes to the GOP's biography problem. They argue that they have two Cuban-Americans, an African-American and a woman running so doesn't this show they aren't the racist party?
Not really. It's not about biography. Black folks aren't going to vote for Ben Carson, Latinos won't vote for Cruz. It's ideas that matter not biography. FDR came from a very privileged background but the American people saw in him their great advocate. Ideas, not biography.
The real problem with W is not just that he has the same last name but that his Presidency continues to be seen as such a disaster by sizable portions of the electorate. Even the GOP base hardly seems to want another Bush as Trump has aptly demonstrated.
And the problem with W's legacy goes back to its inception-the 2000 election. It's not just 9/11, Katrina, the tax cuts, the financial crisis.
The Original Sin of the W Administration is how he was installed in office through an act of the Supreme Court. His very legitimacy from day one was suspect in many Americans' eyes-and Jeb as Florida's Governor at the time had a big hand in this.
The press tried to play this down, I think they worried that, faith in the system was in peril and that protecting this at all costs was more important even than who really won an election.
Then after 9/11, it became unpatriotic to criticize W in any way, much less bring up the trivial fact that his very Presidency itself was of suspect legitimacy. The press more or less sold the idea that Bush would have won the recount.
"The newspapers’ error has to be understood in the context of the time. After Bush prevailed in the recount, there was massive pressure to retroactively justify the processes that led to his victory, in the general spirit of restoring confidence in the system. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, that pressure intensified to the point where it was commonly opined that the newspapers ought to entirely cancel the recount (scheduled to come out in November 2001, at the height of the rally-around-Bush moment). In that atmosphere, the newspapers grasped for an interpretation that would both reassure most Americans of what they wanted to believe and avoid placing themselves in opposition to a powerful and bipartisan rallying around Bush that was then at its apogee"
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html#
In fact, if both 'undervotes' and 'overvotes' were counted Gore would have had a small lead.
The question is this: if Bush would have won a recount why was the GOP's first governing principle of the recount fight that the recount had to be stopped at all costs?
The strategy was not to win the recount-that was called for by Florida law, not Al Gore-but to shut the recount down. To claim that it was illegitimate and just the product of Gore being a sore loser.
John 'Mac' Stipanovich, 'Kartherine Harris's brain' at the end more or less says that Gore would have won the recount.
He was also prophetic in what he told Harris: What we are going to do here, we are going to be hated for the rest of our lives, along with our children, and grandchildren
I think something of this contagion effect infects the whole Bush clan. W managed to totally infect the name. Jeb has never had a chance. No way does he outrun the name and his complicity in the palace intrigue that put his brother in.
Regarding the tactics of Stipanovich, this kind of underscores that the Dems had taken a knife to a gun fight.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/02/opinions/borger-bush-v-gore-15-endless-election/
What happened in 2000 then is relevant with another Bush running for President. It also shows the legacy of voter suppression that is still every much with us today. If the Democrats are gong to become a force in state government again they will have to do something about the disenfranchisement of African-Americans and Latinos.
For a good book on 2000 see here.
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Theft-2000-Spectacle-Election/dp/0742521036/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1446568158&sr=1-1&keywords=9780742521032
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/jeb-can-fix-elections.html
I think this goes to the fact that his campaign from its inception has had this pink elephant in the room he can't avoid-his brother, former President George W. Bush.
This is why the campaign decided to call itself Jeb! This was the illusion that he honestly could achieve and distance from W at all.
Conservatives have tried to argue that Hillary has the same problem-that she like Jeb is another dynasty candidate. But I don't think there's a meaningful comparison.
First of all, the Clinton years are simply remembered much more favorably than the W years. The American people aren't adverse to electing two people form the same family per se-tow of our greatest Presidents both had the last name of Roosevelt.
This goes to the GOP's biography problem. They argue that they have two Cuban-Americans, an African-American and a woman running so doesn't this show they aren't the racist party?
Not really. It's not about biography. Black folks aren't going to vote for Ben Carson, Latinos won't vote for Cruz. It's ideas that matter not biography. FDR came from a very privileged background but the American people saw in him their great advocate. Ideas, not biography.
The real problem with W is not just that he has the same last name but that his Presidency continues to be seen as such a disaster by sizable portions of the electorate. Even the GOP base hardly seems to want another Bush as Trump has aptly demonstrated.
And the problem with W's legacy goes back to its inception-the 2000 election. It's not just 9/11, Katrina, the tax cuts, the financial crisis.
The Original Sin of the W Administration is how he was installed in office through an act of the Supreme Court. His very legitimacy from day one was suspect in many Americans' eyes-and Jeb as Florida's Governor at the time had a big hand in this.
The press tried to play this down, I think they worried that, faith in the system was in peril and that protecting this at all costs was more important even than who really won an election.
Then after 9/11, it became unpatriotic to criticize W in any way, much less bring up the trivial fact that his very Presidency itself was of suspect legitimacy. The press more or less sold the idea that Bush would have won the recount.
"The newspapers’ error has to be understood in the context of the time. After Bush prevailed in the recount, there was massive pressure to retroactively justify the processes that led to his victory, in the general spirit of restoring confidence in the system. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, that pressure intensified to the point where it was commonly opined that the newspapers ought to entirely cancel the recount (scheduled to come out in November 2001, at the height of the rally-around-Bush moment). In that atmosphere, the newspapers grasped for an interpretation that would both reassure most Americans of what they wanted to believe and avoid placing themselves in opposition to a powerful and bipartisan rallying around Bush that was then at its apogee"
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html#
In fact, if both 'undervotes' and 'overvotes' were counted Gore would have had a small lead.
The question is this: if Bush would have won a recount why was the GOP's first governing principle of the recount fight that the recount had to be stopped at all costs?
The strategy was not to win the recount-that was called for by Florida law, not Al Gore-but to shut the recount down. To claim that it was illegitimate and just the product of Gore being a sore loser.
John 'Mac' Stipanovich, 'Kartherine Harris's brain' at the end more or less says that Gore would have won the recount.
He was also prophetic in what he told Harris: What we are going to do here, we are going to be hated for the rest of our lives, along with our children, and grandchildren
I think something of this contagion effect infects the whole Bush clan. W managed to totally infect the name. Jeb has never had a chance. No way does he outrun the name and his complicity in the palace intrigue that put his brother in.
Regarding the tactics of Stipanovich, this kind of underscores that the Dems had taken a knife to a gun fight.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/02/opinions/borger-bush-v-gore-15-endless-election/
What happened in 2000 then is relevant with another Bush running for President. It also shows the legacy of voter suppression that is still every much with us today. If the Democrats are gong to become a force in state government again they will have to do something about the disenfranchisement of African-Americans and Latinos.
For a good book on 2000 see here.
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Theft-2000-Spectacle-Election/dp/0742521036/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1446568158&sr=1-1&keywords=9780742521032
No comments:
Post a Comment