ChrisWeigant.com

A Third Dubya Term?

[ Posted Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 – 16:11 UTC ]

Are American voters now being given the option of choosing a virtual third term for George W. Bush? Astonishingly enough, that seems to be the direction his brother's campaign has chosen to head towards. I use the word "astonishingly," since conventional wisdom would seem to indicate that this is a dandy way to commit political suicide. But because Jeb Bush is standing so resolutely with the last Bush administration's policies, he now risks his entire campaign turning into a referendum on whether America is truly ready for a third Dubya term.

Jeb's campaign has, up until this week, gotten off to a slow start. This is likely been done on purpose, so mountains of cash can be raised quietly, behind the scenes, without trying to compete in any way with the other flash-in-the-pan Republican candidacies that have been announced recently. But when Jeb got interviewed earlier this week on Fox, he gave an answer to a question about the Iraq War that caused quite a few jaws to drop. Jeb seemed to be saying that even "knowing what we know now" he still would have made the same decision to invade Iraq as his brother did. Now, I parsed his answer in yesterday's column, and wound up giving him the benefit of the doubt. I believe that what really happened was that Bush tried to answer the question he wanted to be asked rather than the question he was actually asked. To be fair, politicians use this trick all the time and they are rarely called on it.

But now Bush has tried to quell the controversy in another interview, and he wound up doing even more damage. Here is his excuse for his previous answer, and his new answer to the question:

I interpreted the question wrong, I guess. I don't know what that decision would have been -- that's a hypothetical. Simple fact is, mistakes were made.

Wow. "Mistakes were made." That's it? Pretty passive stuff, to say the least.

In the intervening time period, other Republican presidential candidates have been asked the same question, and most responded with some version of: "Knowing what we now know? Then, no, I would not have invaded Iraq." It's really not that tough a question to answer, except when the man you're implicitly criticizing shares your last name.

But this raises a whole raft of questions for Jeb. How deep does fraternal loyalty go? I mean, I understand that this could make for an awkward Thanksgiving dinner at mom and dad's house, but such is the nature of dynastic politics. Jeb, in the original interview, seemed to be almost taunting the press: "Yes, I mean, so just for the news flash to the world, if they're trying to find places where there's big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of those." But where, one wonders, can one of these differences be found, if not on Iraq? Bush seems to relish tossing down the gauntlet to the press to find daylight between him and his brother, in an "I bet you can't find any!" way.

Is Jeb Bush really going to run his campaign to be the third term for his brother? Does he really think that's going to be a winning strategy? If this is true, it might be a shorter campaign than Jeb is now planning, to say the least. Even most Republicans now admit that invading Iraq wasn't ultimately such a hot idea, after all, to say nothing of the general public or even just independent voters. Jeb famously said earlier that his campaign might have to "lose the primary to win the general," which was seen as a signal that he wouldn't be catering to the most rabid of the Republican voter base, but rather attempting to win enough delegates to secure the nomination among more moderate Republicans. By tying himself so closely to his brother's legacy, he risks not even being able to do that. If he somehow does manage to claim the Republican nomination, touting his brother's record isn't going to win him many votes among a large portion of the general election electorate.

Both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton face dynastic problems in their campaigns. Jeb has not only an ex-president brother but also an ex-president father. Hillary's husband was president as well, obviously. Both Jeb and Hillary have the challenge of proving to the public that they're not just a clone of their relatives, and that they have their own opinions on critical matters. The world has changed, the country has changed, and therefore new positions on some issues are necessary. Hillary has already begun this shift, since populism is going to be much more important to her political prospects than it ever was for Bill's. She's shifting away from Wall Street and towards Main Street, in her economic outlook. This will eventually cause her to refute or at least rebut some of her husband's policies. It's inevitable. There are in fact many other policy shifts she'll be able to make without rocking the Democratic boat too much.

But where else is Jeb going to disagree with his brother's policies if not on Iraq? It's the most obvious choice for him, but he seems determined not to take it. Part of Jeb's problem, many have pointed out, is that he has surrounded himself with the exact same foreign policy advisors his brother used while president -- and while America invaded Iraq. This is almost assuredly influencing Jeb when he talks about Iraq, but it's impossible to know to what degree. This may become a much bigger problem for Jeb, because it just reinforces the "Dubya's third term" theme in the public eye.

Distancing himself from his father is a little easier for Jeb to accomplish, because George H. W. Bush earned the wrath of his own party for signing a tax increase (after his famous "read my lips: no new taxes" pledge). Jeb can easily point to this example and say he'd have acted differently than his father. It's an acceptable answer for the Republican base voters.

Jeb should have taken the exact same route with the hypothetical Iraq question, and created some distance from both his brother and from a war most of America now feels wasn't worth fighting. He wouldn't have caused too many ripples by doing so, if his answer was artful. Earlier in the campaign he stated that he was "his own man" (i.e., not his brother) and this would have been the perfect opportunity to prove it.

Instead, Jeb seems to be getting more and more bogged down by what should have been an easy softball question. Now it's not just journalists that are asking, but people at his campaign stops as well. When one asked how he was different from his brother, he first tried to laugh it off with: "I'm much better looking than my brother. I'm much younger." When that didn't work, he tried a blanket statement which could even make things worse for him: "Of course I have differences with every previous president." This just leads to more amusing questions for Jeb to stumble over, such as: "What differences do you have with Ronald Reagan?" -- a rhetorical minefield to traverse in front of a crowd of Republicans, if ever there was one.

By refusing to give the common-sense answer to the Iraq question, Jeb has now set himself up for endless future questioning over whether there are in fact any differences between him and Dubya. By taunting the press (in essence: "Betcha can't find any differences!") Bush does two things, neither of them good for his campaign. He's guaranteeing he'll get more and more questions comparing him to his brother in the future (which was supposed to be something Jeb's campaign wanted to avoid). Secondly, if Jeb keeps doubling down on supporting each and every position of his brother's, he ties himself tighter and tighter to Dubya's record and legacy.

At some point, this is going to look an awful lot like his campaign is making the case for a third Dubya term. Such a backwards-looking campaign is not exactly a winning hand in presidential contests, though. His opponents will soon start asking: "Do we really want to relive the Dubya years?" Or, even worse: "Do we really want more of these 'mistakes' to be made?"

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

32 Comments on “A Third Dubya Term?”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I think you are so on point to be focusing on Iraq. National elections - at home and abroad - since that fateful decision to invade in March 2003 have been (not so) surprisingly lost.

    It could be that one of the issues that resonates most in voters' minds in November 2016 revolves around Iraq and its disastrous and endless aftermath and why you may, come late next year, be writing about President-elect Paul. That may, in fact, be a very reasonable outcome.

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Now he's gone and gaffed. He's made a mess of that Super PAC campaign charade. It really is starting to look Chimpy is his adviser.

    If you quote me, you're lying.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea...

    It would be SOO much better if Saddam Hussein had stayed in power to victimize his people... :^/

    So much for the vaunted Left Wing compassion, eh?

    As far as a Bush third term??

    I can tell you one thing..

    On the one hand, we have a Bush third term.

    On the other hand, we have an Obama third term..

    Hands down, the American people would much MUCH prefer a Bush third to an Obama third...

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a really all academic because we won't need to worry about a Bush third term OR an Obama third term.

    We're going to have a WALKER first term.. :D

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-3

    What about the Prime Directive prohibiting interference with the internal development of alien cultures?

    In what universe is there going to be an Obama third term? Is Michelle running?????!!!!!! Did you mean a third Clinton Term?

    Or, is post 3 a simple case of: Harcourt Fenton Mike! Have you been relying on your crutch again?

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    What about the Prime Directive prohibiting interference with the internal development of alien cultures?

    The Prime Directive doesn't apply to alien cultures that have reached a certain level of technology.. Now, if you want to AGREE with me that islamic governments are way WAY back on the civilization scale, then we can have that discussion.. :D

    In what universe is there going to be an Obama third term? Is Michelle running?????!!!!!! Did you mean a third Clinton Term?

    Hillary First Term = Obama Third Term except LESS competent... if such a thing is possible..

    Or, is post 3 a simple case of: Harcourt Fenton Mike! Have you been relying on your crutch again?

    I am insulted that you would think I would be drinking at 0930....

    I don't start drinking until 1000hrs :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    College Student to Jeb Bush: "Your Brother Created ISIS."

    That is a headline this morning in more than a few papers.

    Bush's rather testy response to the question dug himself in deeper to the "I'd do it again" line of defense.

    Is there widespread nostalgia for Dubya? Do yah miss me? Jeb must think so. If he's thinking at all.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    College Student to Jeb Bush: "Your Brother Created ISIS."

    Actually, it was Obama who created ISIS, but try telling that to ideological fanatics...

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Jeb faces some serious problems. The first is *yawn* ... he's boring.

    The second is that I'm not sure the Republican base really likes him. They seem to prefer a "believer".

    W. was a believer. He was also the worst president ever, but he was a believer. I don't know as defending W. hurts him with the believers.

    It will be interesting to see what else he has to do to play to the extreme right though.

    Can't wait to see his appearance at the gun range. Or flip flop on immigration and personally deport a Mexican.

    -David

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    W. was a believer. He was also the worst president ever, but he was a believer.

    Actually, that honor belongs to Carter and Obama..

    But why quibble with facts, eh? :D

    Say what you want about Jeb, but at least he is not afraid to be out there..

    Hillary is so insulated, her handlers won't let her go to the bathroom without polls and focus groups..

    CW had commented often that it was a good tactic for Hillary to delay the announcement. Once she announced, so the theory went, she would have to respond to the press..

    She announced a month ago and still is ignoring the press and the American people..

    What's she afraid of??

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Hillary..

    “All I’m saying is that the idea that there’s one set of rules for us and another set for everybody else is true.”
    -Bill Clinton

    Looks like Clinton confirmed EXACTLY what I have been saying the whole time...

    Again, the age old question surfaces..

    Is Hillary the best that Democrats have to offer???

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Ok ... maybe Bush wasn't worse than Nixon. And Buchanan may be my pick for worst ever.

    But W. is at least 2nd worst in the modern era.

    Carter looks like Clinton by comparison and Clinton looks like Roosevelt.

    -David

  13. [13] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I mean, c'mon, Michale ... 2 cluster-#*@# wars and a financial crisis ...

    My campaign ad against Jeb would feature all three.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, c'mon, Michale ... 2 cluster-#*@# wars and a financial crisis ...

    One of the wars was, and still is, Obama's war...

    And the financial crisis can be DIRECTLY traced to Bubba Clinton's actions...

    But you know me.. I am a foreign policy wonk/military man...

    I see the world thru the tactical and strategic lenses of a military person..

    And, thru THOSE eyes, Obama is hands down, the worst POTUS ever...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You can say those things all you want, Michale. The only people who believe it live in a bubble.

    Obama has been the one winding down the wars and ending the cluster-$@$^.

    I think you want to go back to war. God knows why.

    -David

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama has been the one winding down the wars and ending the cluster-$@$^.

    There is more to leadership than just "winding down wars"... And there is more to "winding down wars" than just washing hands and sayin', "Ziiiiipp We're outta here"...

    Obama's "winding down" in Iraq directly lead to the ascension of ISIS...

    Obama's "reset" with Russia directly lead to The Crimea being annexed by Russia...

    Obama's bowing to the Iranian Mullahs has directly lead to the ascension of Iran as a regional threat...

    I could go on and on and on, but you get the idea...

    We don't even have to wait for future historians to write Obama's foreign policy legacy...

    It's already been cemented...

    WORST.... POTUS..... EVER.....

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    How many Iraqis has Obama killed??

    How many innocent civilians has Obama killed??

    These were REALLY big Lefty talking points under Bush...

    Yet NO ONE wants to talk about it now...

    Domestic surveillance under Bush.. The Left Wing went batshit hysterical crazy...

    Under Obama??

    {{{chhiiirrrrrppppppp}}} {chiirrrrppppp}

    Need I go on??

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the bi....

    Good ta see ya, David! I've missed ya!! :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    TheStig wrote:

    What I can't figure out from the past few days:

    Is this a deliberate tactic on the part of Jeb and/or his brain trust?

    Or

    Is this an unforced error by a guy who hasn't done any politics in the last eight years and hasn't campaigned for any office in the last 12?

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    Probably the latter...

    He's rusty...

    That's all it is...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow. "Mistakes were made." That's it? Pretty passive stuff, to say the least.

    As opposed to our current POTUS who NEVER admits to mistakes..

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama's kow-towing to the Iranians has DIRECTLY lead to a nuclear arms race in THE most dangerous region of the planet..

    Saudi Arabia vows to set off new Middle East arms race and 'match Iran's nuclear capability'
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-vows-to-set-off-new-middle-east-arms-race-and-match-irans-nuclear-capability-10250789.html

    No matter WHICH litmus test you want to use, Obama has been a COMPLETE disaster for the safety of this country and this planet...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Since we're talking hypotheticals, let me put one to you..

    Knowing what you know now, would you vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the 2008 Dem Primary??

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Maybe framing the language in a different way could help Jeb over the next few days.

    I don't know half the intelligence my brother had on Iraq half as well as I should like, but I do appreciate that less than half the media appreciate my brother's legacy half as much as he deserves.

    By the time the audience parses what this does or doesn't mean, discussion will have moved on to other matters.

    Yes, I stole this from Fellowship of the Ring.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said, I am a simple man..

    Saddam Hussein... BAD.

    Taking out Saddam Hussein... GOOD.

    Iran with nuclear weapons... BAD

    Making a Deal So Iran Can Acquire Nuclear Weapons... VERY Bad...

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Barack Obama ... easy.

    -David

    "You know what affirmative action is? When a coke-snorting alcohol guzzling son of a CIA director DUIs his way into Yale, and ultimately into the Oval office because his daddy was in both places." - Larry Wilmore

  27. [27] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I was pretty confident that this would not drag out for long. One thing that is certain about the Bush clan is that they will say and do what's necessary to get what they want. It's a pretty safe bet that King George W gave a green light for Jeb to answer the hypothetical just like the rest of the candidates. Go on. Admit it was/is a disaster. Mistakes were made. Somebody else's mistakes of course.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You know what affirmative action is?

    Yes... Barack Obama.

    When a coke-snorting alcohol guzzling son of a CIA director DUIs his way into Yale, and ultimately into the Oval office because his daddy was in both places."

    Isn't it funny how ya'all are so Pro Drugs when it's a Democrat, but so Anti-Drugs when it's a Republican..

    Funny, iddn't it.. :D

    One thing that is certain about the Bush clan is that they will say and do what's necessary to get what they want.

    And the Clinton's won't!???

    Mistakes were made. Somebody else's mistakes of course.

    Sounds like Barack Obama... :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    When a coke-snorting alcohol guzzling son of a CIA director DUIs his way into Yale, and ultimately into the Oval office because his daddy was in both places.

    So, coke-snorting is disqualifying for POTUS when a Righty does it, but it's NOT disqualifying for POTUS when a Lefty does it...

    Could anyone explain the logic of that??

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-20

    Yup, yer right, it's the latter. He is disengaging from that debacle.

    Rusty. Tin Woodsman rusty. Oil can...oil can.

    Best to get these things out of your system early in the game.

  31. [31] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M - 25

    "As I said, I am a simple man.."

    We know.

    Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    "As I said, I am a simple man.."

    We know.

    Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

    Not at all.. :D

    Ya'all speak for the Hillary Clintons and Barack Obamas of this country..

    I speak for Joe and Jane Sixpack...

    Yunno.. The ones who actually decide elections? :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.