Matt Kuhns writes…
Out of curiosity I have to ask, why are you so convinced that the GOP won't nominate Jeb Bush, now? I just don't see how blustering in ways that seem (to you, and to me) imbecilic and embarrassing will be worrisome to Republican primary-goers. My own observations are that they seem, rather, to demand it.
Well, I'm not convinced they won't nominate him. They have to nominate someone. He just no longer seems like the likely guy to me. Of course, right now, no one does.
I just think that, first of all, Jeb Bush has lately looked like a really bad campaigner — a guy who gives an answer on Monday, hedges it on Tuesday and reverses it on Wednesday. I don't think any party likes a nominee who does that and it's worse with a faction of the Republican party that seems to thinks it's a sign of leadership to state a firm position and never, ever budge even a millimeter off it. (Democrats sometimes seem to have the opposite problem. On those rare occasions when one of them takes a firm position, he or she loses few points within the party for backing away from it.)
The other problem Bush has is that the current Republican Party is running far from the position that George W. Bush was a good president and that he made all the right calls in Iraq. Even "he was misled by bad intelligence" is a pretty feeble excuse…one that the people offering it to defend Bush would not accept with regard to any foreign policy miscall made by Obama or anyone named Clinton. It's going to be pretty awkward if not impossible for Jeb Bush to distance himself from all that, especially when the Democrats have video of Bush saying he turns to his brother for advice on dealing with other nations.
Speaking of all this: It's fine when the press asks candidates what they would have done about Iraq but I'd like to hear a few of them also asked what they would do (present and future-tense) about Iran. I dunno…I'm thinking in some vague, remote way that might be relevant to the job of being the 45th President of the United States.