Monday Open Thread [3.30.15]
Wall Street Journal: “Some politicians relish the campaign trail: the rope lines, rallies and photo ops. For Mrs. Clinton, it’s more of an ordeal to be borne. One veteran of her past races said that if Mrs. Clinton had her druthers she would delay entering the race as long as possible, perhaps waiting until deep into the summer. Yet if the fallout from stories about her email practices as secretary of state and foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation have made anything clear, it’s that Mrs. Clinton can’t afford to wait. If she’s going to run, she needs to start the race. Now.”
“Mrs. Clinton had a rough winter and the absence of a campaign operation made matters worse. She had a bare-bones press operation to deal with an avalanche of media inquiries. Other than through paid speeches, she had scant opportunity to change the subject and focus attention on the issues that she’d prefer to be front and center: jobs, wages, the middle class and equal pay for women. Republicans, meantime, are casting her absence from the campaign as a sign she’s ducking tough questions.”
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that 34% of Republicans called President Obama an imminent threat to the United States, versus 25% who ranked Russian President Vladimir Putin and 23% who viewed Syrian President Bashar al-Assed as that dangerous. Hell, Republicans love Putin. They love their fascist strongmen.
New York Times: “Mr. Bush, a privileged scion who married a Mexican woman and boasts of being bicultural, reflects his polyglot adopted hometown, Miami, and state. He is telling Republicans, in effect, that they must accept a changing country: that the path to the presidency will be found through appealing to voters who may not look like them, and with a standard-bearer whose state and immediate family resemble tomorrow’s America.”
“Mr. Walker, a small-town minister’s son who met his wife, a Milwaukee native, at a Wisconsin barbecue joint, is a product of one of the most politically and racially polarized regions of the country, metropolitan Milwaukee. He has succeeded by confronting his adversaries and by generating soaring levels of support from his fellow Republicans in a state they have failed to carry in a presidential race for more than three decades. The party’s way forward, by Mr. Walker’s lights, lies in demonstrating toughness in the face of intense opposition from the left and mobilizing those who are already inclined to support conservatism.”
Given what we know about the Republican base and their antipathy for a changing minority-majority America, guess which candidate will have greater success?
Bush’s name still gives his great support among Republicans, however. He currently leads the field on that question in a new CBS poll:
In the event that Iran and the members of P5+1 group reach a preliminary agreement on Iran’s nuclear program this week, we can expect a release of sound and fury from conservatives about how it sets the world on fire. To prepare yourself for making your own determination about the value of any such agreement, read Jeffrey Goldberg’s list of the five questions you should ask.
I think that most rank and file, non-whack job Republicans are going to go for Bush. Some of them have to hold their nose because he is a Bush after all. I wonder if 8 years of a non-Bush is enough to get rid of the smell? Still, he is white, male, and conservative with very little baggage and might be able really compete with the juggernaut. Speaking of which, I’m assuming the respondents answered the question with the thought that Republicans were going to face Clinton. I wonder what the numbers would look like if she were out of it. Would it still be Bush?
What is surprising to me is Huckabee’s showing.
Who is surprised at the WSJ’s lazy capitalization on the Hillary narrative? If you google Hillary run in spring, you’ll get news articles and opinion pieces back to January that claim she will announce (or formally launch the exploratory committee) this spring.
@Dave: Bush has more baggage than you think, from dubious business interests to his shameful performance in the Terry Schiavo affair. Indeed, most of his opponents are more objectionable for things they have said. Bush is objectionable for things he has done.
Which Republican is the media more likely to fall in love with? A serious presidential run depends on a lap dog media doing back-flips over a candidate’s down home “authenticity”. McCain had it, Romney not so much. Obama had it to some extent, but Clinton and GWB were the kings of getting the media to play along and republish press releases as if they were news stories.
Jeb? Perhaps. But he doesn’t want to be viewed as other Bush clown.
Huckabee? Maybe.
Paul…? too weird.
Scott Walker? Too Creepy
Cruz…? WAY too creepy.
Perry? He had it for a minute and then lost it.
Christie? Good lord no. He is the media’s anti-candidate.
This analysis favors Huckabee. Look for him to get the gushing press attention and be lobbed softball after softball.