June 1, 2007

Jeb Bush on electing a new people to elect his son:

In the WSJ, the former Florida Governor, along with discredited ex-RNC head Ken Mehlman, drags out the Pete Wilson myth to explain why the Republican Party needs the Kennedy-Bush bill. No mention of Jeb's highly ambitious half-Mexican son George P. Bush, whom George W. Bush calls "44", needing a new improved electorate to better his chances of carrying on the Bush dynasty.

By the way, George P. has finally shown a little noblesse oblige and joined the military. Well, kind of sort of. He signed up for the Naval Reserve.

To show how a real hereditary royal family works, Mayor Daley of Chicago's son Patrick, who is about the same age as George P., enlisted as private in the Army back in 2004 after getting his U. of Chicago MBA. He's now with the 82nd Airborne.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

20 comments:

Dave said...

I was talking about this bogus op/ed with my girlfriend over dinner last night, and I told her about George P. Bush. Her reaction was that no other Bush would ever get elected, but I told her the Bushes take the long view. Things could change in 15 years, and George P. will only be in his mid-40's.

Heather Mac Donald also demolishes the Jeb Bush-Ken Mehlman theory about the GOP's decline in California.

Mugwump said...

I'd like to think that you're being too simplistic. But George W. wrecked Iraq, at least in part, because Hussein took a peck at Daddy. So why not transform the U.S. into a third world nation so that "P" might have an easier path to the White House?

Why can't these people just do the decent thing - cash in and enjoy a luxurious anonymity and just leave us the hell alone?

Anonymous said...


To show how a real hereditary royal family works, Mayor Daley of Chicago's son Patrick, who is about the same age as George P., enlisted as private in the Army back in 2004 after getting his U. of Chicago MBA. He's now with the 82nd Airborne.


The Irish (and the Scots) have a long tradition of military service. Why, Arthur Wellesley used many of them to great effect.

Anyone who gets into the 82nd Airborne deserves some respect.

C. Van Carter said...

gThe op-ed is a pile of bad arguments.

"Our national motto, "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many, one) explains one of the key ways our nation is different from other nations"

No, it refers to the coming together of the seperate states. Is this stupidty or deception on Bush and Mehlman's part?

"What matters is that person's work ethic, heart, dreams and aspirations"

Hamilton had a differen't notion of what mattered, he said "The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country, which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family." But what did he know?

"some of America's best cuisine is Italian."

Hey, it's our old friend the 'food argument.' Bush and Mehlman don't disappoint.

"Finally, the immigration reform bill will strengthen America's culture."

How? They don't say.

"Hispanic Americans are natural Republicans"

Even though they vote for Democrats.

"Salsa outsells ketchup and tacos outsell hot dogs."

Immigrants have a poor diet. So what?

Here's the complete text of the piece:
http://blogs.eastvalleytribune.com/view.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=1343&blogId=31

Anonymous said...

I dont forsee real Republicans ever supporting another Bush in the next 30 years unless the alternative is just awful.

However, our flawed primary process allows candidates who are media darlings, and are well-funded to win by default. If we could talk all the Republican candidates out of running except Ron Paul, Rudy Guiliani, and John McCain..............I think Paul would dust the other two very badly. But he (or Tancredo) cant really get traction when there are so many running, diluting the field. Meanwhile the establishment will pick either McCain or Guiliani and run with them early on, guaranteeing them a stable percentage of the vote through all the primaries.

In my opinion, us paleo-conservatives need a rallypoint (Amconmag.com's answer to NRO) to discuss how to proceed. We need to get behind one candidate and send the guy a little money.


I personally will never vote for another Bush. I believe family dynasties are bad. Witness the Kennedys, the Fords of Memphis Tennessee, the Bushes, etc. Our founders did not want a monarchy or a royal court or anything that resembled "royal lines" out of which are leaders were to be picked.

This article let me know one thing more: Jeb is a bad guy too.

Anonymous said...

Americans don't like political dynasties much.

The only one that seems to be still around is the Kennedy's ... and that's in the Dem party which is filled with elitist dyanasts. Daley is just a machine pol, his son isn't going anywhere. Wrong race. The mayor after Daley will be Latino or Black.

THAT is a consequence of illegal immigration.

Bush is done, his party is fed up with him, even decades later they won't want anyone with his name. Because the Reps are now trending strongly populist and anti-Dynastic. "Divorce" is the mantra on most of the conservative websites, and most conservatives are populists.

Compare/Contrast Rudy and Fred's populist style, with that of Dynasts Shrillary and Obama the Messiah. Bush was lucky he ran against Gore the Robot and Kerry the Upper Class wimp each time around. But overall the Rep Party is becoming Angry Jacksonian.

essex said...

How are "most conservatives" populists? Because anti-immigration sentiment is so strong among conservatives at the moment? What else makes conservatives populists? Don't forget that there are still many of us high-Tory-type conservatives whose opinion of the masses is ... mixed at best.

Anonymous said...

Thanks C. Van Carter for picking through the details of the Bush/Mehlman lunacy, which is nothing less than intellectual infantilism.

And we're supposed to slurp this Kool-Aid down? These comments are Bush family versions of "let them eat cake".

Anonymous said...

The Bush family is done for politically.

DoubleYuh has absolutely trashed the family name for a good long time.

Who in the future will vote for anyone who shares the name of this POS?

The future of the beloved "Prescott" does not look bright because the family is going to be trashed long after W is gone by liberal historians who will savage this administration for decades.

When Bush leaves he will probably be immediately ranked by historians among the five worst Presidents of all time, in part because America was at its zenith in 2000 and Bush managed to wreck America's power.

From a race realist perspective, we are VERY fortunate JEB did not become President in 2000.

Without GWB and Rove's obvious, venemous, genocidal hatred of white America, the current anti-immigration backlash probably would not have occured, or at least, not occured until some point farther into the future.

As the smarter Bush, JEB would surely have found a way to sweeten an amnesty in Congress so that a backlash of the present magnitude could not have developed.

Old Right

Anonymous said...

Essex -- Conservatives are populists because they endorse populist measures aimed at securing the economic and social well-being of the average, middle class family.

To wit: affordable housing, public safety, anti-crime, anti-affirmative action (which hits white middle class people hard), pro-military spending and action (which benefits defense workers, skilled blue collar workers, and protects "the little people").

Reagan's defense spending single-handedly kept the middle class afloat in California for years beyond what it would have been with illegals competing for housing and driving up crime.

Elitists love high crime because they can afford body guards, the crime puts a cap on upward mobility which threatens elites. Affirmative Action acts as a blocking mechanism to talented but middle class whites who wish to attend the top schools, as school rankings determine hiring and job opportunities.

Jon Stewart asked fellow elitist Bill Kristol on the Daily Show why conservatives cared about 9/11 since his (Upper West Side or yuppie elite) audience didn't. Kristol couldn't answer of course but I can.

The people who died on 9/11 were almost without exception not elities. The WTC was filled with "little people" or as Elitist Lefty Ward Churchill put it, "little Eichmans." They were the unglamorous back office people, the accountants, minor lawyers, clerical staff doing the boring drudge work that kept Wall Street going. And like the blue collar fireman and police officers and Port Authority people who also died there, they couldn't afford to live in the super-rich elite playground of Manhattan. But were part of the derisively named "bridge and tunnel" crowd who came in from New Jersey and Long Island and Queens.

So yeah, National Defense and the desire to express American Patriotism and nationalism by hitting back hard at our enemies is a populist move opposed by transnational elites.

These are all pretty much mainstream, Conservative positions.

Anon 1:29 -- Ron Paul is a lunatic fringer, with zilch appeal to Conservatives. He suggests we "deserved" 9/11 which Conservatives reject, he's part of the lunatic anti-Semitic or certainly anti-Israeli paleo Pat Buchanon Isolationist loony right. Like Buchanon he's probably more at home with the Daily Kos crowd than anyone else.

Conservatives like Rudy (except his wishy-washy stance on Amnesty which could kill him) because he comes across as a tough, anti-Bush populist who told that Saudi prince to stuff it after 9/11. They're willing to overlook his stance on abortion and guns and gay marriage for his nationalist-populism.

Conservatives see America kicked around by Jihadis, Muslim grievance groups, Lefties, and PC-namby pamby Bushies and don't like it, want someone to kick ass back. Don't think for a second that isn't a powerful strain in American politics.

tommy said...

Some anti-amnesty humor. I'm seriously thinking about attaching these links to the next batch emails I send to senators and representatives.

IMAO: White House/WSJ Immigration FAQ

IowaHawk: Give 'Til It Hurts: Republican Campaign Contribution Script

Riot Nrrd said...

To show how a real hereditary royal family works, Mayor Daley of Chicago's son Patrick, who is about the same age as George P., enlisted as private in the Army back in 2004 after getting his U. of Chicago MBA. He's now with the 82nd Airborne.


In my opinion that's not noble, it's stupid. People with graduate degrees who have honestly obtained them and can function at that ability can do far more good as officers.

Anonymous said...

I think the whole immigration debate is a shame. It just shows the sense of entitlement everyone has developed, mainly thanks to whites and there own self destructive guilt. The idea that Mexicans feel they should be treated better when they illegaly enter the US shows such contempt for our laws, that I do not understand why we do not just throw them out. Rather, we give there children citizenship, pay them benefits, and provide education in their native tongue. People will look back in a few years and miss the America that we had.

GreySwan.net

Anonymous said...

Fee fi foe fum, I smell the blood of a NEOCON

anon 4:49, stop trying to condition us

anti-war, anti-the Iraq war does not = anti-semitism

This is about the US, not Israel which despite Christian prophecy is not the center of the universe.

There's a difference between saying the policies of our government brought 9/11 on us than saying the people who died that day deserved to be killed

As far as I'm concerned, they were an acceptable risk for our government, a government with its own reasons for not protecting our borders.

Paul and Buchanan are wise men. They are not isolationists. Non intervention is about respecting the sovereignty of nations that aren't invading or shooting at you.

Assigning blame to a conveniently despicable middle eastern dictator in order to "kick ass" is criminal.

Anonymous said...

"Conservatives like Rudy (except his wishy-washy stance on Amnesty which could kill him) because he comes across as a tough, anti-Bush populist who told that Saudi prince to stuff it after 9/11. They're willing to overlook his stance on abortion and guns and gay marriage for his nationalist-populism."

Rudy is just plain stupid. When he claimed in the second GOP debate that he had never heard the theory that we were attacked on 9/11 because we interfere in the middle east, he is either lying or he is an idiot or both. I'm betting both. Either way, it's not a good sign. Add in his three marriages, his loyalty to Bush, his weak stance on immigration, and his stance on gun control. Why is he good again? Because he talks tough? There's no shortage of politicians that do that.

"He suggests we "deserved" 9/11 which Conservatives reject, he's part of the lunatic anti-Semitic or certainly anti-Israeli paleo Pat Buchanon Isolationist loony right."

Why is it the mark of a lunatic to suggest we stop fighting Israel's wars and policing third world hell holes that will never change? Okay, let's not get into that right now. Instead, here is a modest compromise. How about we keep fighting in Iraq and Israel sends its troops here to police our Mexican border and round up illegals? It's a whole lot safer than Gaza ever was and the Israelis aren't squeamish about racial profiling. The money we'd save keeping illegals out would almost make the war worth it.

JR

jedster said...

Does George P. Bush hold dual citizenship? This question is in reference to your comment about him being half-Mexican. Or are you referring to his mother, who was born in Mexico but is now an American? Are you making a cultural or a racial or an ethnic reference?

I also thought the rumor was that he was nicknamed 45, not 44 (which was rumored to be Jeb's nickname).

Moreover, do you have any evidence that Bush actually does call George P. Bush either 44 or 45?

Otherwise, relatively boring post.

mepo said...

Did Ron Paul really say we deserved 9/11? Or did he say that 9/11 was partly a consequence of our meddling in the Middle East? Those aren't remotely the same thing, right? It's like the difference between "you deserved to be raped because you dressed like a slut" and "you probably wouldn't have been raped if you hadn't gone into a biker bar dressed like that."

essex said...

Anon 6/1 4:46 said:

Conservatives are populists because they endorse populist measures aimed at securing the economic and social well-being of the average, middle class family.

I'm not sure the "average" family is truly middle-class, but let's say it is. There are countless big government programs that do wonders for people in the middle - student loans, Social Security, Medicare, all of these benefit the middle class. They did not start out as conservative programs, nor do I hear many calls from conservatives to expand them. And yet, they do more for "average middle-class" people than all the immigration restrictions and Draconian anti-crime legistration populists can dream up.

To wit: affordable housing,

What conservative program is aimed at affordable housing? Oh, right ... immigration restrictions. Even if immigration restrictions really would lead to more affordable housing, it's a side effect, not the intended purpose of the restrictions. If conservatives REALLY wanted to be populist in this area, they would favor increased government subsidies for construction of housing aimed at lower-middle-income families. But that wouldn't be conservative, would it?


public safety, anti-crime,

No argument from me that these are conservative issues, and certainly they can be cast as populist ones, too(especially in the hands of ranting demagogues like O'Reilly and Dobbs). On the other hand, I think the idea that elites "love" crime is absurd. They may not care as much as people who have fewer resouces to protect themselves, but ask residents of Manhattan - a highly elite place these days - how much they miss the old, high-crime era.


anti-affirmative action (which hits white middle class people hard),

Remind me which credible conservative politicians at the national level are publicly calling for an end to all forms of affirmative action.

pro-military spending and action (which benefits defense workers, skilled blue collar workers, and protects "the little people").

That's not why most conservatives favor a strong military - at least I hope it isn't. The way you describe it, the military is just an incredibly expensive make-work program. In fact, I think and hope that most of us support it because we support a strong United States presence in the world.

I'm not claiming that there aren't plenty of populists among conservatives. But there's nothing inherently conservative about populism. (What could be more populist than big government programs? Every conservative claims to hate them, but in fact we only hate the programs that don't benefit us or our loved ones.) Since the nation is still largely run by an elite (as it always has been - although the elite has a somewhat different composition nowadays), it's easy to pick and choose the great things that would happen if only "the people" were really in charge and proclaim oneself a conserviative populist. Or a liberal populist. In fact, direct rule by the populace would lead to a lot of things that conservatives and liberals alike would hate.

Mark said...

Remind me which credible conservative politicians at the national level are publicly calling for an end to all forms of affirmative action. - Essex

Immigration is an area where populism and conservatism overlap. To some extent, conservatism is about preserving the traditions and culture of a nation. Immigration from unassimilable groups destroys that. So it is both populist and conservative to want to reduce immigration.

Reducing immigration is also a way of using market forces, rather than government programs, to reduce crime, increase affordable housing, etc., since immigration drives up demand for housing (thence: price) and increases the number of neighborhoods where natives don't feel welcome in their own land.

Populism demands results rather than specific mechanisms for achieving them; except that more government programs, run by more bureaucrats to, and facilitated by higher government spending, isn't something I'd consider to be "populist."

Remind me which credible conservative politicians at the national level are publicly calling for an end to all forms of affirmative action.

Not many, unfortunately; but the positions taken by politicians is not what defines conservatism.

essex said...

Mark wrote:

Immigration is an area where populism and conservatism overlap.

We agree on this point. There are certainly many populist arguments to be made in support of conservative positions.

But ...

except that more government programs, run by more bureaucrats to, and facilitated by higher government spending, isn't something I'd consider to be "populist."


"Taxes on the richest 10% of the population should be drastically increased, with the resulting revenue used to establish universal health care" is ALSO a populist argument. In fact, redistrubtion of income from richer people to poorer people is probably the quintessential populist cause.

This is why I dispute the idea that conservatism is becoming "more populist." It is rather that (many) conservatives have adopted a cause - immigration restriction - that lends itself to populist arguments. I don't see anything in conservatism itself that is particularly populist.