June 27, 2005


Politics: Jeb Bush's Surprise Move (Arian Campo-Flores and Lynn Waddell, 7/04/05, Newsweek)

Jeb Bush's request (that a state attorney investigate alleged discrepancies in Michael Schiavo's statements about how long he took to call 911 after Terri's collapse) startled even his closest confidants. While critics accused Bush of trying to curry favor with cultural conservatives, "this wasn't a position taken for the purpose of pandering," says one political adviser who was surprised by Bush's intervention and who asked not to be named to avoid appearing disloyal. "It's based entirely on his strong personal bias for protecting life." Though some Bush advisers would have preferred he drop the subject, says another who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, his current circle avoided challenging him. "I think this was his impulse," says the adviser, "and the staff amplified it."

Ill-advised or not, Bush's maneuver only fueled speculation about a possible presidential run in 2008. Given a GOP field that lacks a standout contender, Bush "would automatically be the one to beat" were he to enter, says Mac Stipanovich, a former Bush campaign manager.

Especially if John McCain doesn't run, it's just such an easy nomination to grab you'd have to go for it if you've any thought of ever doing so.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 27, 2005 11:46 PM

It's interesting to see that not only Democrats are obsessed with appealing to the 20% at the expense of alienating the 80%. It is no coincidence that after Federal interference in the Schiavo case that W's approval ratings have been in the tank.

Posted by: bart at June 28, 2005 6:18 AM

Or maybe Republicans, like the Democrats, believe what they are saying.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 28, 2005 8:37 AM

So the remaining 60% of us will have to decide whether we are more afraid of a domestic theocracy or the effects of cutting and running in Iraq. That's not pretty.

Posted by: bart at June 28, 2005 8:50 AM

Iraq doesn't matter.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2005 9:17 AM

"Domestic theocracy?" Why stop there? You forgot to mention the black helicopters from the UN, the Mossad agents posing as art students who control our foreign policy, the flouride in the water, the Trilateral Commission, the aliens at Area 51, the Habsburg restorationists, Bush's secret plan to assasinate Cynthia McKinney, Enron, . . .

Posted by: Mike Morley at June 28, 2005 10:13 AM

I think Jeb really dislikes Michael Schiavo, and this is what he can do right now.

Posted by: jim hamlen at June 28, 2005 11:28 AM

I agree that Iraq won't matter by the next election, but I'm not sure what will matter. Will it be the old Democratic favorites like the economy, healthcare, tax the rich, etc. or issues brought up by the Schiavo case like euthanasia, late term abortion and stem cell research.

Schiavo case has been so distorted in the media that most people don't know what to think about it. I sure don't and I'm a news junkie. Jeb may know more about it than we do. He certainly must know more about the autopsy than was reported in the media. I think he's a very decent guy who doesn't grandstand, so if he thinks the Schiavo matter needs looking into, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Jeb Bush might very well make a great president, but I don't think it'll happen for several reasons, a. He said he doesn't want to run; b. The media will have a field day accusing the Bush family of trying to turn our republic into a monarchy; c. The people who detest the president will transfer that hatred to Jeb; and d. His family problems (wife trying to slip jewelry past customs, accusations he used favoritism to get his drug addicted daughter in rehab) are ripe for media exploitation.

Condi Rice I love as a candidate. She's everything good about this country and not wishing to risk blogcrankery, I'll withhold comment on the third person mentioned in the original post.

Posted by: erp at June 28, 2005 11:45 AM

This is how ascendant movements peak, through overreaching.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at June 28, 2005 1:47 PM

Yes, but the overreach is decades away and there's layer upon layer of secular statism to be stripped away in the mean time.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2005 1:54 PM

Why strip it away? Just lay your religious statism on top and we'll enjoy double the bureaucracy.

Posted by: at June 28, 2005 6:17 PM

That's why. Only secularism requires bureaucracy.

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2005 6:28 PM

How are you gonna know everyone is attending Sunday services? That's an awful lot of people to tail.

Posted by: at June 28, 2005 7:01 PM

and which services?

Posted by: oj at June 28, 2005 7:59 PM