I generally dislike early straw or cattle polls for the Presidential Election 2008. Early poll frenzy only pours water into the watermill of superficial media narratives of electability, character impressions, looks, momenta, etc. Needless to say, the modern media discourse easily turns out unfavourably to Democratic candidates. With powers of objective reasoning steadily diminished, character framing and similiar games are controlled by GOP spin-masters. Although there are signs that the media is not following GOP spins so obediently as before, or that conservative talk reached effectiveness boundaries, GOP is still determined to do what it does best: control the political perception throughout the Fox-idised media, find ways to encourage the Democratic opponents to fail.
The bottom line is: Democrats should not just follow the perception circus rules as they are now, they should not be affraid to dictate those rules for their own benefit. (Conservatives were doing exactly that, handily loosely.) The way for Democrats to loose in 2008 is to continue enforcing the same rules of electability and supposed charms. If we need more substantial debates for success, we have to add and use the substance ourselves. However enthusiastic polls happen to be now, I still don't feel as if I know much substantial about Hilary or Obama - and that reminds of Dukakis or Kerry scenario.
The idea that Republicans might nominate John Elly Bush (known as "Jeb" - J.E.B) in 2008 might look laughable - how would they find enough voters to trust another Bush one more time?! But they did succeed to present George W. Bush as non-establishment and barely related to Bush 41 - they might do the same tricks to achieve that for J.E.B. over 2 years as well. They are already nicely working on the contrast between J.E.B. and George W. Remember that tear of "Papa" Bush? The idea is not bad indeed...
For more, check this discussion at the NRO Corner blog:
When Jeb Bush stepped down earlier this month after eight years as governor of Florida, he had reduced taxes, enacted the most impressive reform of public education in any state, restructured health care, and, dealing with a series of major hurricanes, turned in half a dozen impressive performances in crisis management. His approval rating? Sixty-three percent.
Intelligent, likeable, well-read, and articulate, Bush is conservative both by temperament and conviction. Married to a Mexican, he speaks fluent Spanish, and, already revered among Cubans in Miami, would be able to make the conservative case to Hispanics in the rest of the country in a way no other Republican could equal. He comes neither from a small state, such as Romney’s Massachusetts, nor from a city, that, for all its greatness, stands at a political and cultural remove from the rest of the nation, such as Giuliani's New York, but from a state that is both the fourth most populous and entirely middle American. He is not an erratic maverick, like McCain, who has zigged and zagged across the political spectrum, but a man of fixed principles.
The ideal candidate — the candidate who would thrill conservatives while commanding the respect even of those who differ with him — Jeb Bush possesses only one liability: His name.
There are two solutions to this problem. Bush can change his name to "Humperdinck," or we conservatives can start a petition to let him know we’ll support him no matter what he calls himself.
In conversation, at least one experienced political hand agrees that conservatives might vote for the 53-year-old term-limited governor — the first Republican governor reelected in the Sunshine State’s history. "At the end of the day, conservatives are looking for a leader with a proven record of accomplishment, an intellectual understanding of, and commitment to, conservative values with the skill and energy to lead the country in a conservative direction. Jeb is one of the few potential candidates who meets all of those criteria." Jeb might be just what demoralized conservatives want and need.
Time and again, conservatives impressed with his record as Florida governor admit that Jeb Bush would be an obvious — if not the obvious — choice for the GOP in 2008, if it were not for his name. An advocate for school choice, tax relief, spending responsibility, and the sanctity of innocent human life (leading fights for parental-notification and supporting efforts to keep the late Terri Schiavo alive), he’s regularly praised for being a reliable conservative executive — and an effective one at that.
Bush also offers something to those who aren’t necessarily ideologically with him. Compare hurricane-management in Louisiana versus Florida as a quick example. My same D.C. observer continues, noting that Bush is "remarkably popular to this day in a state where support for other Republicans is far lower. He is bilingual and comfortable with diverse audiences without being patronizing, and he has done more than his fair share to help other conservative Republicans win in key states around the country." And look at the map — Florida is a key electoral state for either party to win, and it goes without saying that Bush is popular there.
[Newt Gingrich] addressed the "2007 Health & Human Capital Management Congress." His theme: Moving from the clunky old twentieth century model of health care to the sleek, high-tech model of the twenty-first century.
Right off the bat, Newt named two websites as examples of the way to do it right, making readily available huge amounts of information — information that permits consumers to compare the prices and quality of various drugs and treatments: FloridaCompareCare.gov and MyFloridaRx.com. Newt called the sites "glimpses of the future" and "extraordinarily useful."
"Both these," Newt also stated [...] "are initiatives of Governor Jeb Bush."
Query: Can anyone yet state with certainty and concision — alloting, say, two or three sentences to each candidate — the immigration policies of McCain, Giuliani and Romney? If an enterprising reader would care to prepare a spreadsheet, permitting easy comparison of the policies of these three with those of Jeb, I would be only too happy to post it.
It's time for Republicans to throw aside this inane Bush name business in our discussion of Presidential contenders. Jeb is the best candidate out there and I sure...do not wish to have a Democrat in the White House for the next eight years simply because we were too afraid of the public's reaction to Jeb's last name....Jeb Bush...has stuck by his true conservative convictions through withering criticism, hardships, and fierce opposition. He's lost a few battles, but he's won some pretty important ones. That's what gets us excited and that's the kind of leadership that makes a party volunteer give of his or her everything to get out the vote.
The recent history of conservatism is that in disaster there is renewal. Barry Goldwater’s shellacking in 1964 paved the way for the conservative transformation of the Republican party. Jimmy Carter’s 1976 victory paved the way for Reagan. And Clinton paved the way for Gingrich. Will Nancy Pelosi pave the way for something positive, and if so, whom or what?
We don’t know the answers to those questions. One of the purposes of the conference is to begin to answer them. Newt Gingrich, a one-man think tank, will kick off Saturday’s agenda with a breakfast speech. Then, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, arguably the most innovative Republican officeholder in the country the last few years, will talk over lunch about winning ideas in the states.
The Bush name is not a problem. Why? Because Jeb doesn't run with the last name. Look at his campaign materials, his approachto the public, and how votersand the public refer to him: Jeb.
And it works for him. [How do we know?] Because when he left office he had almost 70% favorability ratings in Florida while his brother was mucking about in the 30s.
Are there no familiar patterns? Won't they possibly sell J.E.B. to the army of conservatives concerned by liberals sides of the presumably leading GOP candidates? There could be easily enough people (within Diebold margin of error) who, given all recent history, would still accept J.E.B. more readily than Hillary another Clinton, or "Hussein" Obama (even with modest hints from Foxnews). The same game "a Bush vs a liberal" does not have to work the next time, but it might be employed again, still with apt expectations.
