Byron York at NRO has the scoop:
U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today announced that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has endorsed John McCain for president.
“John McCain is a patriot and devoted conservative leader,” said Governor Bush. “Like no other candidate in the field, John McCain has made tremendous sacrifices for this nation. He is beholden to no interest other than that of the public good. He is determined and steadfast in his commitment to reducing the burden of high taxes, restoring the people’s trust in their government, and winning the war against radical Islamic extremists. It is with pride that I announce my endorsement of John McCain for president.”
February 11th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
That is as close to a presidential endorsement as you are going to get before the nomination.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Well, this should clinch the nomination for McCain……Not that there was any doubt.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“He is beholden to no interest other than that of the public good”
lol! Sorry, I’m still laughing about that line…
February 11th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I don’t know much about Jeb, but I find George’s declaration that McCain is a “true conservative” laughable. George W has been anything but conservative in some really important areas. I wonder what it’s supposed to mean when somebody whose conservative credentials are dubious endorses someone whose conservative credentials are also dubious…
February 11th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
This country needs a third party.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
<Offtopic>I just saw a movie called Shooter about an ex-Marine sniper involved in a government conspiracy. There was a senator in the movie that reminded me of McCain for some reason. It was eerie…
February 11th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
#5 I’ve thought it would be interesting to have a third party that basically swings the election in favor of the Democrats or the Republicans, depending on which one performs better. The donkeys and elephants would have their steady base, but there would need to be a very strong third party that held some sort of “big tent” group of principles…
February 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
#7 – I can see this happening. Both parties have strayed so far from what they originally stood for that there are many folks out there, myself included, that don’t have a political home.
The Libertarians, Conservatists and Constitutionalists should get together, iron out their differences and come up with something like: The Party of The Founding Fathers!
February 11th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
#8 Really I just wish the Libertarian party could step up to the plate and become more influential. They’d have to drop or moderate some of their more outlying principles (oh no!!!!!) but I think that many Libertarian principles could speak to Democrats… The Libertarians don’t seem to have influenced the Republicans very much lately.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Slightly off topic, but unsure where else to post this. . .
From today’s Anchorage Daily News. . .
http://www.adn.com/224/story/311720.html
First two sections of the article are of interest. Of the two, could the first one be pointing to our very own “PalinForVP” we often see posting here? I’ve been saying for a long time that I was 100% sure Gov. Palin won’t be the VP nominee. Now I’m just 97% sure.
(The third segment of the article talks about how cold it’s been here. Anchorage finally has temps above zero today – woo hoo – but we’re also getting hit with over a foot of snow. My friends in Fairbanks tell me it’s been minus 40 there for over a week now.)
February 11th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Freds – that was a great movie. And, I know exactly what you are speaking of with the McCain reference.
I might need to watch the movie again and draw out some parallels that I can blog about.
I find myself considering the libertarian party more and more but I think it will really take an extremely wealthy few people to get together and launch a real alternative party. It will take many years but I think in today’s American culture it could just work.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I’m not seeing why a third party is needed, especially this year. The big complaint about McCain (coming from a small but vocal portion of the party) is that McCain appealed TOO MUCH to Indies and Moderates. Isn’t that what you want a Third Party to do?
Fact is, this is how our elections always work. The primaries see candidates appeal to their party base (Liberal or Conservative) while the general election sees the candidates move back towards the center. McCain just had a head start. I imagine once the Dems settle on a candidate he or she will do the same. It can be argued Obama has already started to appeal to the center.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
#11 I don’t know that the movie was necessarily inspirational, but it definitely captures the feeling I think many of us feel when it seems that the government no longer represents the interests of the people and that vigilante justice is called for.
Senator: “Are you out of your mind? Are you out of your damn mind? I am a United States Senator!”
Swagger: “Exactly.”
Yeah, more than one parallel to McCain…
February 11th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
#12 The thing about moderates and independents is that, while they have influence, it’s not organized. I personally think it’s ridiculous to criticize a candidate for having support from moderates, but in this case the criticism is valid because McCain picks up that moderate support at the expense of conservative support, which I don’t think is necessary or good. If a “true conservative” (lol) candidate manages to appeal to moderates and independents without compromising conservative principles, well, that’s the key to winning an election.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I like the idea of having strong third parties that the major parties would have to appeal to and form a coalition with in order to win. I am thinking I guess of parliamentary systems, but the difference would be in our republic governments would not fall or become ineffective when a third party bails.
I disagree with the idea that the libertarians, for example, should compromise their ideals and fold into another party to strengthen its numbers. Isn’t that is what is causing friction in the GOP right now? I prefer the libertarians remain pure and people like me should join them instead of being independent or a member of a major party.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
We need to either resurrect the Federalist Party, or re-organize the Bull Moose Party and go trust-busting.
It’ll be fun.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Third parties work in parliamentary systems because issues guide the parties. In our system, it’s the opposite – the parties guide the issues. In our two party system, where majority rules, a Third Party would have no influence because they don’t add to any one party, they only detract from the other. In other words, all congressional committes line up along a majority/minority split. A third party must decide with whom they will caucus. They would never attain any influence because they would have to join one party or another to hold any power, not the other way around. Looking at it another way, in a parliament, a government either stands or falls based on it’s makeup, so the minor parties hold tremendous influence. Our government stays around regardless of who holds Congressional power, so minor parties have no influence in government.
The closest thing we could have to a successful third party movement would be something similar to the Unity08 group. That organization had too many faults to succeed, but in theory it could have formed a huge umbrella group of centrist-minded voters who could try to get each party to adopt it’s platform.
The thing is, however, most issues in our country are either-or issues: Pro-life or pro-choice, pro-tax cuts or against them, pro-social entitlements or against them, pro-GWOT or against it, etc. Parliaments have one or two-issue parties that can have influence, but the US system doesn’t work that way.
The best example of this is a quote from I believe Eugene Chafin, leader of the Prohibition Party in the early 1900s, who explained that he knew his party succeeded once the two major parties adopted positions on alcohol consumption. In other words, as a party they would never attain the oval office, but their core issue made it into the mainstream political debate. That’s all they ever realistically hoped to achieve.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
The most successful third parties in the US were either regional (Wallace in ‘68), personality-based (TR in 1912, Perot in ‘92), or occurred as a result of a cataclysmic event (the birth of the GOP in 1856 in the wake of the impending Civil War). None of them came close to winning the race, and in fact at best only prevented those candidates closest to their own respective philosophy from winning (Perot cost Bush the election in ‘92, TR prevented Taft from succeeding in 1912). Ideological third parties (Progressives and State’s Rights in ‘48, John Anderson in ‘80) have never come close to succeeding.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Maybe instead of 3rd party we just need an informed (I almost wrote ‘more informed’ but realized the error of that statement pretty quickly).
February 11th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Ray. . . On that I totally agree. I’d love to see a movement within the GOP to counter the socons – not as their enemy but as an organized group of Republicans who do not subscribe to the religious-based philosophy of the party. I am not at all against socons, and value them as a significant and important part of the party. But I also thing they have an abnormally high level of influence over the party simply because they are the most organized. There is no organized ficon movement or security movement to counter or balance the socons. If the non-socons somehow organized together, not in opposition to socons but in balance with them, the party as a whole could improve because there would be actual groups working together, with commonalities becoming more aparent instead of the us-vs-them attitude we all seem to have now.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Alaska – I find myself in a quite the pickle here as I would consider myself a pro-life econocon, and gwotcon. I suppose many would consider me a socon but others would disown me. I am not for gay “marriage” but support civil unions because I believe in equal rights for all. I am against affirmative action and all other forms of discrimination. I support the War on Terror but think Iraq has gone crazy and we should get out once it is safe to do so (probably 25 years down the road). I support “torture” and guantanomo. I believe there are ways to do research out of embryonic stem cells. I am all for low taxes. I am against entitlements and think anyone under 40 (or so) should have the option of opting out of Social Security.
I guess I am a Republican but maybe I’m a pro-life libertarian. There certainly is not a single party that represents everything I believe. But, the GOP is supposed to be the “big tent” party so that is where I find myself.
I would love to find a party where all “three legs of stool” were represented but on an equal basis. I feel the same way about the “South” and their identity politics with always having a southern on the ticket to keep them happy.
Maybe there needs to be a pro-life anti-gay party and then the GOP can become the party of economic and defense security with a neutral view on social issues. I don’t really know.
This election has just upsetted me quite a bit.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Yeah – I realize “upsetted” isn’t a word. Thanks.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Ray. . . That’s ok, I’ve been upsetted for a long time. I’ve been pro-life for a long time (I made the Romney switch back in the late 80s myself), been very pro-military, and conservative on economic issues as well. But for me, it’s more of an overall Republican philosophy rather than specific issues. It’s why I’ve been able to vote for Romney this year despite his somewhat lukewarm recod on abortion. On the rare occasions where I voted specific issues, it was ironically the two times I voted Democrat – once when PA Gov. Bob Casey (conservative pro-life Democrat) ran against Barbara Hafer (very liberal pro-choice Republican), and once when I lived in Massachusetts and joined Paul Tsongas’s campaign due to his economic platform. What gets me most upset is that I’m always expected to fall in line every election and vote for the most socon guy running or else I’m not a real conservative, but socons (who only consider themselves to be true conservatives) demand that the candidate must be one of their own or they threaten not to vote at all. Whenever anyone tells me that I don’t measure up to their idea of what a Republican is, it just drives me further away from ever supporting their guy. It’s why I could never overlook the things I didn’t like about Huck. He never gave me a reason to believe I was welcome in his camp despite my aversion to religious conservatism.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Parliamentary systems of government help third parties come about, especially where majorities are needed to select the executive. Proportional representation voting, where voters indicate their party preferences and their preferred candidate separately on each ballot, also supports viable multi-party systems.
I would argue, though, that the American duopoly parties are far better than the multi-party systems elsewhere. Our system’s primary system is unique in how it defines membership, which means joining a dues-paying club elsewhere. These types of parties are very hierarchical and make for very powerful central party committees. PR systems give rise to career politicians who know nothing but party leadership and decide on the party lists of candidates to represent the party’s slate of candidates.
In the PR system in Germany, for example, you might prefer the parliamentary candidate for your district from the Christian Democrats (CDU) but select the Free Democrats (liberarian-ish: FDP) from the list of parties. The hierarchy of the FDP has already chosen the order of candidates to represent your share of the FDP party vote. Since you’re not voting for a person, the party chooses the candidates proportionate to the party’s vote going from the top of the list. There’s also a national hierarchical list for national candidates. In the end, you have less direct connection between the parliamentarian’s home district because the candidates are beholden to the upper echelons of the party’s central committee, which is only concerned with national issues, never regional and geographical interests competing against each other. Strict party-line votes result as the rule in general.
Parliamentary systems are also more effective at the job of governing, which ensures a steady stream of legislation. Our system of more rigid separation between the different branches, with all the checks and balances, holds down government hyperactivity unless we have single-party majorities in all branches. Since the governing executive is chosen by the legislative body in parliamentary systems, the necessary majorities for legislation are generally assured.
Our system keeps heavy-handed government comparatively in check. It also preserves a great deal of decentralization. Yet it is a bit disconcerting that our country appears to be turning “blue” at the state and local levels of governance. It would be welcome for conservatives to push the concept of limited government more aggressively at the state and local levels.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
McCain, for all his faults, happily welcomes all members of the party to join his side as Republicans, not as socons and ficons and sec-cons. I can (barely) overlook McCain-Feingold for the good of the party. I can’t ever overlook Huck’s reliance on religious intolerance.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
MarkG. . . You explain perfectly why I prefer our system to that of most European countries. In our system, despite the fact that many people say they are disenfranchised from their party and the govt, we actually have a lot more control over what happens in our government. Europeans place much more faith in the parties to do everything for them, and accept way too much party control over the issues.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Jake – it seems you and I are pretty much right in line there. When I first started voting I did tend to vote on specific issues but I think I have matured over time (or at least I hope I have) and have moved more towards philosophy and the best of the country.
What gets me the most about the SoCons is that I am staunchly pro-life, got my degree from a Southern Baptist Seminary and have never voted for a pro-choice candidate in my life. My wife and I are very religious but we’re both against religious bigotry in politics.
I just wish that “Social Conservatives” could separate their religious views from their voting views. Now, before I get torn apart for that statement. I, absolutely, believe that every voter is influenced by his/her worldview, but I fear when someone can eliminate a candidate because of his/her worldview or equally will only consider a candidate who shares his/her worldview.
I will agree with Metro that the SoCons have wielded too much influence in the GOP and something needs to be changed in that regard.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I agree in your wish for socons to seperate religious views from voting views. I come at it from a totally different point of view. I’m Jewish, albeit from the minority pro-life Republican wing of our religion. The vast majority of my Jewish friends and relatives ask me all the time “How can you be a Republican with all the right wing religous conservatives taking over the party?” That’s a great question. Many times I find it hard to disagree, but my overall philosophy of conservative Republicanism overrides my disagreements with socons. I just wish socons felt the same way.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Ironically, pro-life position didn’t even become the defining conservative position until the 80s, when Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority began to influence the party. Goldwater was pro-choice, Reagan passed the CA state law allowing abortions, and Bush I was pro-choice when he ran for president in 1980. There was a time, not too long ago, when conservatives valued economic freedoms and stayed away from social issues.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Well on this note of rare agreement within the GOP, I must leave and head in to work.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
#21 “I support the War on Terror but think Iraq has gone crazy and we should get out once it is safe to do so (probably 25 years down the road). I support “torture†and guantanomo. . . I am against entitlements and think anyone under 40 (or so) should have the option of opting out of Social Security.”
Wow. You are actually not a libertarian because no libertarian would support being in Iraq (or any foreign country) for 2 much less 25 years. It is certainly libertarian to be opposed to entitlements, but you again stray when you talk about opting out of social security because you are at once calling for the end of the program and its continuation (one does not opt out of something that does not exist).
As far as torture goes, I do have faith in God and try to be a good person but when I hear someone promote torture I say a little prayer that they themselves experience the pain they are promoting. I guess I believe in a just but vengeful deity.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
#16 – that’s what I was thinking – the Federalist Party.
We need to get big government and nanny-staters out of our lives.
Let the States decide.
Let the Federal Government protect us from outside enemies.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Axel. . . Your’re doing exactly what socons are doing. You’re using a litmus test of a slew of issues to define a philosphy, and then saying those who don’t meet every condition cannot be a member of that philosophy. One most definitely be liberatarian and still be pro-GWOT. One can be libertarian and still see some merits in Social Security. Liberatarianism isn’t all or nothing, just as conservatism isn’t all or nothing.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
#19 – Ray – whatever happens, we need to have folks who understand true conservatism and go to the evangelical churches in America and teach them what it is – the three legs of conservatism via Ronald Reagan, so they won’t go ape over someone like Huckabee again.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Wow. You are actually not a libertarian because no libertarian would support being in Iraq (or any foreign country) for 2 much less 25 years. It is certainly libertarian to be opposed to entitlements, but you again stray when you talk about opting out of social security because you are at once calling for the end of the program and its continuation (one does not opt out of something that does not exist).
That’s kind of a cartoon version of libertarianism, which is a little more varied and nuanced than you might imagine.
It really depends upon how one views the War in Iraq. Is it a national security issue or humanitarian?
I think that the war was a mistake.
I am also opposed to pretending that we never made the mistake.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Alaska Jake,
I disagree. You are comparing a party (say the GOP) to a political philosophy. A political party is necessarily composed of persons with different views but some commonality. So the GOP does have both pro-choice and pro-life members who believe in lower taxes and smaller government. To be a true libertarian as I understand it is to oppose government intervention. There is no “right wing” of libertarianism that favors nation building.
But I also have to disagree with your suggestion that being in Iraq is pro-GWOT (which itself is an absurd concept). I happen to agree with the many experts who say the Iraq war has created more terrorists. It has clearly destabilized the region and only strengthened Iran. And it is costing a fortune.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
TLG – I have to agree with you in #35. We are now stuck in Iraq and I fear our immediately withdrawal will only lead to a greater national security risk.
Axel – thanks for your lesson on the philosophy of libertarianism.
Beth – I agree with you in #32 but in #34 I wonder what is meant by “true conservatism” these days.
-Is Ron Paul the true conservative?
-Is Mike Huckabee the true conservative?
-Is Mitt Romney (of 2007) the true conservative?
Do we decide on the true conservative by what they say in stump speeches or by how they govern? Do we decide on the true conservative by their party affiliation and who they hate more than the rest?
I think this primary cycle as opened up many questions that will have to be addressed quickly by the GOP if they want to maintain any sort of majority status.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Axel – I will be sure to let you know the next time I am water boarded so you can thank you deity for answering your prayer.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Just another display of the inevitability of a McCain nomination.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
[...] http://race42008.com/2008/02/11/endorsement-jeb-bush-endorses-john-mccain/ Brett Passmore 2-11-2008 [...]