If I may say so the articles below;
("Bush/Palin 2016: the GOP's Only Chance?" and "Bush and Palin 2016 A Historic Compromise/"
are quite prescient. What I did not foresee, and I daresay neither did anyone else, was the rise of Donald Trump and the decline, perhaps irrevocably, of Jeb Bush.
The only major change I would make would be my then avowed determination not to vote, again, if Palin was not on the ticket or did not, enthusiastically, (i.e. unlike "anyone but Obama in 2012) endorse a candidate. I will now happily vote for Donald Trump, who has indicted he would "love to have Governor Palin in his cabinet" if he is elected president, which statement will do in lieu of her being his VP if that were the case.
As for Jeb if he is at the "McCain point" in his campaign then he doesn't have the fall back support of being a recognized candidate of quality and campaign experience that McCain had get him into the lead at his low point. What he does have open to him is the other McCain option.
When McCain was polling well behind Senator Obama in a time of massively anti-President Bush feeling, and when Obama's Democratic convention coronation seemed to seal the deal was the brilliant "rogue tactic of calling then Governor Sarah palin in Wasilla and offering her the vice-presidential slot.The rest is history, Palin's roof raising speech, the stunned media and Democratic party and, within days McCain taking the lead over Obama in a huge poll leap.That the economy collapsed a few weeks later and McCain, oddly, suspended his campaign (Steve Schmidt take a bow) saw him go straight behind Obama in the polls from which position he never was ahead again. The Palin haters, not least from McCain's "team" perpetuated the myth that "Palin cost McCain the presidency." This idiocy has been refuted by at least four major academic studies and poll analysis.
Newt Gingrich in his struggling campaign in 2012 stated "I would consider Governor Palin as my vice-president. This immediately galvanized his campaign (Palin voted for him in the Alaska primary) and her supporters got behind him. That Gingrich's campaign collapsed had nothing to do with Palin and everything to do with Gingrich blowing his massive momentum out of South Carolina with a dreadful effort in Florida from which he never recovered.
The point is that for both campaigns Palin lit a spark and in the case of the McCain campaign as Biden said to him "you would have been elected John if it were not for the crash."
Does Jeb have it in him to contact Governor Palin? It is now past the point where a simple "I could work with Palin or some such" would carry any weight. A strong reaching out with a definite commitment to her would stand the campaign on its ear,give the media a massive amount to chew on and suck all the air out of the other candidates rooms and would, in one moment, destroy the "Tired, beaten down Jeb"meme.
Would Palin respond with an endorsement? It really would not matter as if she simply was polite and open with Jeb, as she was in her OAN interview with him then she could see how things played out. The ball is in Jeb's court if he continues on as he has recently he is, surely, done.
I can't think of any other game changer for him and others are leapfrogging ahead of him. A Trump and Palin team has extraordinary benefits as set out below (once the dust cleared) will Jeb go for it or will he be the next out the door-it is that black and white.
Let's talk political reality first. To the question "can the GOP win in 2016?" The answer is "yes, but only if they win Florida." If by 9 pm on election night 2016 the early results indicate Florida has gone to the Democrat, then Republicans of all stripes could simply turn off their televisions, as there would be no path to victory in the Electoral College.
Would Jeb Bush have as good a chance, or better, than any other prospective GOP candidate? Most certainly he might. As a popular Governor of Florida, married to a Hispanic, and who garnered a good proportion of the Hispanic vote, Bush would be in a strong position to carry the state.
Electoral College reality shows that Florida is an essential beginning, with North Carolina/Virginia also having to be in the GOP's column as the evening wears on. Bush, as a former Governor of a Southern state, would not, at least, be at a disadvantage to any other prospective Republican candidates chances in those two states.
Even with those three states in the bag, the GOP would still not be in a winning position without Ohio and one from New Hampshire/Iowa/Colorado/Nevada, at which point they would squeak through by only two electoral votes. It is possible to win without Virginia, but extremely challenging. Again, on the face of it, Jeb Bush would not be at a disadvantage compared to any other prospective Republican candidate in these states, and might have an advantage over some in Iowa appealing to Evangelicals, and in New Hampshire appealing to centrists.
Thus, looking at the 2016 election purely in Electoral College terms, Jeb Bush would appear to be in a position to do no worse than any other prospective candidate and, in crucial states, he might do better.
The Electoral College would be of a secondary consideration should President Obama be as unpopular as G.W. Bush was in 2008, and the economy still in a suboptimal situation as regards the unemployment figures after eight years of a Democrat president. Under those circumstances it would not necessarily matter who the GOP candidate was, as electoral victory would be more or less a given. At that point the GOP establishments call for an "electable" candidate would have no resonance and a genuine conservative, a Palin for example, would have every chance for the nomination and subsequent election as president.
If however the economy has improved, or is seen to be improving, and especially if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat's candidate, then the "electability" and Electoral College arguments would have some substantial force and credibility. But it would be of no avail to have an "electable" centrist if the Palinite, conservative forces didn't vote. Although Evangelicals turned out for Romney in 2012, two million Perotite White voters stayed home. Running another centrist in the Dole/McCain/Romney line is no formula for ensuring a maximized conservative turnout. Neither is running a perceived conservative like Paul Ryan for VP a guarantee, as the Romney/Ryan ticket proved.
In the scenario outlined above, i.e. a Clinton candidacy during a relatively non-negative economic and political environment, a centrist presidential candidate with a charismatic conservative VP running mate may be the GOP's only best hope. A Jeb Bush/president - Sarah Palin/vice-president ticket covers all the Electoral College, Evangelical, pro-life, centrist-conservative, experienced governorships, male/female bases.
Both are strongly vetted and most certainly there is nothing in Palin's life that has not be diced and sliced, disproved and shown to be a product of leftist hate. Even in liberal circles there has been grudging acceptance that Jeb Bush ran a successful administration in Florida and that he is "Not George W."
Palin is not the media neophyte she was in 2008, and never again would be the subject of the astonishing MSM/Blogosphere hate and ambush that she was then. A Bush/Palin team would be a candidacy of ideas, from experienced campaigners, which would have to be addressed by the opposition media and Dem's without the distraction of lurid media "scandals."
A Hillary Clinton candidacy would require a woman on the GOP's ticket to negate the "it's time for a woman in the White House" meme. With the balanced ticket, Bush's appeal to Hispanics and, according to Real Clear Politics, the even more important possibility of a dropoff in Black turnout allied to an increase in White voters to the polls, even a Clinton candidacy can be overcome.
The GOP establishment shunning Palin to the point of, once again, not even inviting her to speak to the nominating convention, would be the height of stupidity and a guarantee of a suboptimal conservative turnout. Having Palin on the ticket would, bring in a massive energy, enthusiasm and commitment from her great mass of supporters, as she did for McCain in the most hopeless of circumstances.
Objections to the Bush/Palin team concept would include "the country wouldn't want another Bush." That argument had force up until this year, but as the Obama administration sinks in popularity and credibility, G.W. Bush rises in both, and by 2016 his administration would be a memory which many might see through rose-colored glasses. Certainly "it's all Bush's fault" would be a ludicrous battle cry after eight years of Obama.
As for Palin, again, everything possible has been thrown at her and the "she's dumb and thinks Africa is a country" nonsense is tired and silly, and would be lampooned if trotted out again. The "heartbeat away from the presidency" loses its force with Bush being much younger than McCain, and Palin having been a commentator with authority on all and sundry during her Fox consultancy years. She would of course be more than a capable debater as she proved with Biden in 2008.
Would Palin accept the VP slot again? Only she could answer that, but given her dedication to America, but if she was given the freedom to campaign as was denied to her by the McCain team, it is of course a possibility. It would hold out to her the chance of a run of her own after eight years, when she would still be relativity young, and would of course be vastly experienced. Running with a pro-life Catholic would not be a barrier to Palin's views it could fairly be stated.
Would Palin's supporters accept her being VP? Speaking for myself if Palin accepted the role then I would, as an uncompromising Palin supporter, support the ticket wholeheartedly (after a wistful consideration of the ticket being the other way around). Some Palin supporters might insist that "Palin would never accept being the VP candidate again" and raise many valid objections. But none of them can speak for Palin herself, and time, place, and realistic assessments can make seemingly impossible pairings e.g. Reagan/Bush possible.
I
mmigration and establishment ties would appear to be the main divide for conservatives. The seemingly impossible Bush/Palin pairing would not be affected by the current immigration controversy which saw Bush plead for more immigrants at the Faith and Freedom Conference. That Palin made a seeming dig at Bush for his "fertile" comment is nothing compared to G.W.H's "voodoo economics" attack on Reagan. Bush self-described himself to Christian Broadcasting News CBN as pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and pro-tax cuts.
By 2016 the immigration issue will have been addressed, and legislation will have passed, despite conservative objections and be under implementation, or it will have failed to pass. If the former, then the internal GOP divide on the issue could only be patched over with a Bush/Palin pairing (or Cruz if she does not wish to run). If the proposed "gang of eight" legislation fails then the pairing might be the only hope of keeping the GOP establishment on board for the election.
A sure sign that the establishment sees Jeb Bush as a possible candidate is Time Magazine running a major feature: "Has Jeb's time come." What the article doesn't address is how to effect "Jeb's time" without the support of the Palinite rank and file.
The Palin/Bush pairing (which works either way) would see the rifts in the GOP healed over, a united team with massive resources in finance, manpower and credibility, and a very real path to Electoral College victory -- an historic compromise for the restoration of a conservative America. All this is moot of course if the immigration crisis splits the GOP asunder -- which might well lead be a Bush versus Palin primary campaign.
Even with those three states in the bag, the GOP would still not be in a winning position without Ohio and one from New Hampshire/Iowa/Colorado/Nevada, at which point they would squeak through by only two electoral votes. It is possible to win without Virginia, but extremely challenging. Again, on the face of it, Jeb Bush would not be at a disadvantage compared to any other prospective Republican candidate in these states, and might have an advantage over some in Iowa appealing to Evangelicals, and in New Hampshire appealing to centrists.
Thus, looking at the 2016 election purely in Electoral College terms, Jeb Bush would appear to be in a position to do no worse than any other prospective candidate and, in crucial states, he might do better.
The Electoral College would be of a secondary consideration should President Obama be as unpopular as G.W. Bush was in 2008, and the economy still in a suboptimal situation as regards the unemployment figures after eight years of a Democrat president. Under those circumstances it would not necessarily matter who the GOP candidate was, as electoral victory would be more or less a given. At that point the GOP establishments call for an "electable" candidate would have no resonance and a genuine conservative, a Palin for example, would have every chance for the nomination and subsequent election as president.
If however the economy has improved, or is seen to be improving, and especially if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat's candidate, then the "electability" and Electoral College arguments would have some substantial force and credibility. But it would be of no avail to have an "electable" centrist if the Palinite, conservative forces didn't vote. Although Evangelicals turned out for Romney in 2012, two million Perotite White voters stayed home. Running another centrist in the Dole/McCain/Romney line is no formula for ensuring a maximized conservative turnout. Neither is running a perceived conservative like Paul Ryan for VP a guarantee, as the Romney/Ryan ticket proved.
In the scenario outlined above, i.e. a Clinton candidacy during a relatively non-negative economic and political environment, a centrist presidential candidate with a charismatic conservative VP running mate may be the GOP's only best hope. A Jeb Bush/president - Sarah Palin/vice-president ticket covers all the Electoral College, Evangelical, pro-life, centrist-conservative, experienced governorships, male/female bases.
Both are strongly vetted and most certainly there is nothing in Palin's life that has not be diced and sliced, disproved and shown to be a product of leftist hate. Even in liberal circles there has been grudging acceptance that Jeb Bush ran a successful administration in Florida and that he is "Not George W."
Palin is not the media neophyte she was in 2008, and never again would be the subject of the astonishing MSM/Blogosphere hate and ambush that she was then. A Bush/Palin team would be a candidacy of ideas, from experienced campaigners, which would have to be addressed by the opposition media and Dem's without the distraction of lurid media "scandals."
A Hillary Clinton candidacy would require a woman on the GOP's ticket to negate the "it's time for a woman in the White House" meme. With the balanced ticket, Bush's appeal to Hispanics and, according to Real Clear Politics, the even more important possibility of a dropoff in Black turnout allied to an increase in White voters to the polls, even a Clinton candidacy can be overcome.
The GOP establishment shunning Palin to the point of, once again, not even inviting her to speak to the nominating convention, would be the height of stupidity and a guarantee of a suboptimal conservative turnout. Having Palin on the ticket would, bring in a massive energy, enthusiasm and commitment from her great mass of supporters, as she did for McCain in the most hopeless of circumstances.
Objections to the Bush/Palin team concept would include "the country wouldn't want another Bush." That argument had force up until this year, but as the Obama administration sinks in popularity and credibility, G.W. Bush rises in both, and by 2016 his administration would be a memory which many might see through rose-colored glasses. Certainly "it's all Bush's fault" would be a ludicrous battle cry after eight years of Obama.As for Palin, again, everything possible has been thrown at her and the "she's dumb and thinks Africa is a country" nonsense is tired and silly, and would be lampooned if trotted out again. The "heartbeat away from the presidency" loses its force with Bush being much younger than McCain, and Palin having been a commentator with authority on all and sundry during her Fox consultancy years. She would of course be more than a capable debater as she proved with Biden in 2008.
Would Palin accept the VP slot again? Only she could answer that, but given her dedication to America, but if she was given the freedom to campaign as was denied to her by the McCain team, it is of course a possibility. It would hold out to her the chance of a run of her own after eight years, when she would still be relativity young, and would of course be vastly experienced. Running with a pro-life Catholic would not be a barrier to Palin's views it could fairly be stated.
Would Palin's supporters accept her being VP? Speaking for myself if Palin accepted the role then I would, as an uncompromising Palin supporter, support the ticket wholeheartedly (after a wistful consideration of the ticket being the other way around). Some Palin supporters might insist that "Palin would never accept being the VP candidate again" and raise many valid objections. But none of them can speak for Palin herself, and time, place, and realistic assessments can make seemingly impossible pairings e.g. Reagan/Bush possible.
I
mmigration and establishment ties would appear to be the main divide for conservatives. The seemingly impossible Bush/Palin pairing would not be affected by the current immigration controversy which saw Bush plead for more immigrants at the Faith and Freedom Conference. That Palin made a seeming dig at Bush for his "fertile" comment is nothing compared to G.W.H's "voodoo economics" attack on Reagan. Bush self-described himself to Christian Broadcasting News CBN as pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and pro-tax cuts.
By 2016 the immigration issue will have been addressed, and legislation will have passed, despite conservative objections and be under implementation, or it will have failed to pass. If the former, then the internal GOP divide on the issue could only be patched over with a Bush/Palin pairing (or Cruz if she does not wish to run). If the proposed "gang of eight" legislation fails then the pairing might be the only hope of keeping the GOP establishment on board for the election.
A sure sign that the establishment sees Jeb Bush as a possible candidate is Time Magazine running a major feature: "Has Jeb's time come." What the article doesn't address is how to effect "Jeb's time" without the support of the Palinite rank and file.
The Palin/Bush pairing (which works either way) would see the rifts in the GOP healed over, a united team with massive resources in finance, manpower and credibility, and a very real path to Electoral College victory -- an historic compromise for the restoration of a conservative America. All this is moot of course if the immigration crisis splits the GOP asunder -- which might well lead be a Bush versus Palin primary campaign.
And then did an update in December 2014
Bush And Palin 2016 A Historic Compromise? (And Three Questions For Jeb)
I wrote the article "Bush-Palin 2016 The GOP's Only Chance? which appeared,with much controversy, at American Thinker" in June 2013. With Jeb Bush all but certain to be a candidate. With his announcement of "actively" exploring a 2016 run the article becomes not only prescient, but the questions raised are of some major import in my opinion.
Nothing has changed in respect of the, to use the most moderate word I can, "caution" among conservatives about Bush and other Establishment figures e.g Christie and Romney. One thing has also not changed, if Governor Palin took an antipathetic attitude to Jeb to the point of advising her millions of followers not to vote for him (by name) or, even worse for his prospects went 3rd party, his chances would be diminished to say the least.
On the other hand, if Palin did not run there is nothing Bush could do to affect her or her following so she holds a significant hand in the matter.
With that in mind there are three significant questions that could be raised with Governor Bush;
1."If Governor Palin does not run for president would you invite her to be a major guest speaker at the 2016 GOP convention?
2.Would you see a major role-perhaps Energy Secretary- role for Governor Palin in your cabinet if elected?
3. Would you put Governor Palin high on your list of possible running mates If she is not a candidate for president?
Of course, if Governor Palin does mount a presidential campaign these questions would go on the back burner, but if Jeb won the nomination, then there is no escaping them, unless he wishes not to have her endorsement and her followers votes (and how did that work out for Romney?)
As a well known Palin supporter right from the start I stand by my call for a historic compromise.
But if Governor Palin is not on the ticket, and it is not iron clad certain that points 1/2/3 would be implemented, or she doesn't endorse the nominee early (unlike her late Romney “endorsement” of “anyone but Obama") I will sit out 2016 and am certain I would not be alone.
On the other hand if the 2016 ticket is any combination of Bush/Palin, or Governor Bush answers questions 1-3 positively and Governor
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
