Things change. But for right now Jeb really looks like a loser. Weak, indecisive, buffeted by outside forces rather than in control.
— @joshtpm
NY Times:
So Jeb Bush now says he would not have invaded Iraq if he knew then what he knows today. Neither would Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, John R. Kasich, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum or Marco Rubio. In fact, Mr. Rubio said, “Not only would I not have been in favor of it, President Bush would not have been in favor of it.”
Which raises an interesting question: Would George W. Bush still have authorized the invasion in 2003 had he known that Iraq did not actually have the unconventional weapons that intelligence agencies said it did?
Mr. Rubio’s staff said he based his comment on the fact that Mr. Bush had expressed regret about the false intelligence he relied on and — since the war was predicated on it — it is reasonable to assume he would have decided differently, if he had known differently.
But in fact, while Mr. Bush has said he was sick to learn the intelligence was off base, he has always defended his decision to invade Iraq as the right one, arguing that the world is still better off without Saddam Hussein.
Some things change, some things don't. When they're not lying about the war, they're lying about Dubya. It's the only way they can compete.
The Fix:
This past week, likely GOP presidential contender Jeb Bush swung and missed on the question of whether he would have authorized the use of force against Iraq in 2003, knowing what we know now.
Then he swung and missed again.
And again.
I still don't think Jeb gets it. He either comes up with a superb answer (not so far) or he's going to get creamed on this.
More politics and policy below the fold.
Eugene Robinson:
At this point in the campaign, do you see the Republican presidential hopeful who’s going to beat Hillary Clinton? I didn’t think so.
Not if what we’re watching now is the best the GOP can do. Maybe a thoroughbred will emerge from the coming debates, assuming the party finds a way to cram all the candidates onto the same stage. So far, however, most of the GOP field seems to be in a contest to make the likely Democratic nominee look better. Jeb Bush has been the biggest disappointment. It’s one thing to be rusty after spending a few years away from politics — indeed, Clinton’s handling of her e-mail controversy was less than balletic. But Bush shows no sign of having given more than a passing thought to the central challenge he faces in reaching the White House: the fact that his brother got there first and made a mess of things.
Ed Kilgore:
Former Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin announced earlier this week that he would indeed pursue a rematch with Ron Johnson, the Tea Partyish Republican who beat him in one of 2010’s biggest upsets. And the early polls confirm that a presidential cycle with its very different turnout patterns come make all the difference in the world. An April survey by the respected Marquette Law School polling unit showed Feingold leading Johnson by a big 54/38 margin.
There’s a long way to go, obviously, and Feingold, a career-long campaign finance reform advocate, will almost certainly face a big financial disadvantage. But just about every handicapper has this as the first or second most likely Senate seat to change hands next year, right up there with Mark Kirk’s.
This could be a big deal for more than the obvious reason. If we go into the presidential nominating contests with Scott Walker as a co-front-runner like he is right now, it certainly won’t help the credibility of his claim that he’s turned Blue Wisconsin into a beer-and-brats version of supine job-creating paradises like South Carolina if general election polls in the state are showing Johnson being trounced by Feingold—and his very own self getting stomped by HRC. It’s something to watch.
Anna Greenberg:
Although Indiana is far removed from battleground lists of either party, recent events there and their impact should command the attention of national political operatives on both sides.
Three months ago, Indiana Governor Mike Pence stood among the most popular executives in the country. In a February 2015 survey released by the Indiana Association of Realtors, Pence boasted a 62 percent approval rating. Other contemporary surveys showed similar results. However, two more recent, independently conducted surveys show Pence struggling with mixed job ratings and below 50 percent of the vote in trial heats when paired against Democrat John Gregg. In a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/Human Rights Campaign survey conducted among likely voters between April 7-9 left Pence at just 43 percent positive ("excellent" or "good") job rating, and he managed only 47 percent of the vote against Gregg. A Howey Politics Indiana registered voter survey taken a few days later (April 12-14) by Bellwether Research & Consulting also showed Pence underwater (45 percent approve, 46 percent disapprove of his job performance), and he reaching just 43 percent of the vote share against Gregg (37 percent for the Democrat).
Neither are impressive results for an incumbent Republican in a red state Romney won by 10 points.
The Hill:
The state of the economy trumps foreign affairs as the top issue for voters in the 2016 presidential election, according to a Gallup poll released Friday.
Nearly 90 percent of people named the economy as being extremely or very important in determining their vote next year.
About three-quarters of the public, meanwhile, is concerned about terrorism and 61 percent about foreign affairs in general.
The number of respondents concerned about terrorism has dropped from 86 percent in 2004, just after the invasion of Iraq.
Mark Ambinder:
Republican presidential candidates have a major media problem on their hands, and it has nothing to do with partisan bias.
Between the day they announce their candidacy and the night their debates begin, they will draw little to no media attention unless they blunder.
Blunders — be they bursts of anger at interviewers or interpretative gaffes about the Iraq War — will be the central organizing principle of media coverage. There will of course be plenty of excellent journalism committed along the way, but it will be read by people whose minds are already made up, and it shall generally be forgotten. (There's usually one exemption per cycle: In 2007 and 2008, Ron Brownstein divided the Obama and Clinton coalitions by employing a great metaphor: Hillary was supported by beer-track voters; Obama was supported by wine-track voters.)