Washington Post: Voters Should Totally Evaluate Hillary On Her Record, Not Her Name

Oh, wait, the WP Editorial Board is saying this about Jeb! Bush

Jeb Bush is more than a name

“I AM not going to change who I am,” Jeb Bush declared last week, in the run-up to the official kickoff of his presidential campaign on Monday. Mr. Bush couldn’t escape his most glaring personal detail — his last name — even if he wanted to. Yet for all the recent talk of family baggage and a stumbling start to his 2016 effort, Mr. Bush has a good shot at winning the Republican presidential nomination, because he is a strong conservative former swing-state governor, and of winning the general election after that, because he is the Republican presidential candidate who so far seems most interested in actually governing. It is on these and other relevant characteristics — not his name — that voters should judge him.

I’m waiting with bated breath for something similar about Hillary.

In his Monday announcement speech, Mr. Bush pitched himself as an accomplished executive responsible for a raft of conservative reforms in Florida, his adopted home. “We will get back on the side of free enterprise and free people,” he said. “I know we can fix this. Because I’ve done it.”

Mr. Bush’s record has a lot that many Republicans should like. He cut taxes, slashed the state workforce and enacted a school voucher program. He ended affirmative action at state universities and approved a “stand your ground” justifiable homicide law, a policy that’s appealing to those ideologically committed to expansive gun rights. Mr. Bush has not traded in his conservative card since, though it has meant falling behind the times on issues such as gay marriage, which he firmly opposes.

There are two points to this missive, which seems to actually support Jeb. First, it is meant to bolster his candidacy, because the Conservative base is dead set against him, and would fail to come out to vote for him, similar to Romney and McCain. As the editorial goes on to say, Bush has a big problem with Conservatives, and Republicans, when it comes to his support for amnesty for illegal aliens, Common Core, anthropogenic climate change, and a few other issues. Yes, he has a pretty good record of governance. The other issues are killers. The WPEB wants Jeb to be the GOP nominee, to lose against whichever Democrat is their candidate

The second point is to paint him as a far, far, far right Conservative, so he loses the moderates and those who are tired of the crummy policies of the Obama administration and might otherwise have voted GOP.

Mr. Bush has the time and resources to hone his operation and message. He will have to convince GOP primary voters that conservative governing, not conservative tantrum-throwing, is what their party’s leader should be committed to.

Again, when do we get something similar about Hillary? This editorial actually provided some details on Jeb!’s record. What of Hillary’s? Where is her record? What successes has she had during her time in office?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “Washington Post: Voters Should Totally Evaluate Hillary On Her Record, Not Her Name”

  1. Liam Thomas says:

    I’ve been saying this through two elections against Barak Obama. If the GOP wants to win they have got to pull together and stop beating every candidate thats not their own over the head….

    Its Kum Bye AHH time. ANY Candidate on the right elected to the white house if your a conservative/Libertarian or right leaning moderate….IS BETTER THEN THE ALTERNATIVE.

    Do we actually want 8 more years of progressive policies from Hillary Clinton?…The GOP is going thru the same thing that plagued the left after Carter was elected…..The blacks/hispanics/gays/transgenders/envirowhackos/PETA/Name a group……all refused to get behind and SHUT UP any candidate that was NOT THEIR CANDIDATE…….and it showed.

    Clinton came along and told them all to shut up and he would take care of them after he was elected.

    Im telling the right the same thing….there are several candidates I cant stomach on the right but I will vote for them vs voting for Hillary and I will not say one bad thing about ANY OF THEM HERE or anywhere else because ANYBODY ON THE RIGHT is better then Hillary or Warren.

    IF the GOP continues its bickering they can sit on the sidelines again in 2016 and gripe about 4 more years of progressive politics.

  2. Jeffery says:

    As a liberal who has watched with horror the Republican’s descent into darkness, I can tell you that Dems would support and applaud the nomination of extremists such as Huckabee, Cruz or Santorum, as they cannot win a fair national election.

    National demographics work against the Republicans, so their only faint hope is to nominate either a moderate or (as Liam suggested) a moderate-acting extremist (or obviously to rig the election – which they are working to do).

    Bush is the Republican candidate who stands the best chance nationally.

    Cruz/Trump 2016

  3. Dana says:

    If Jeffrey says that Mr Bush is our best potential candidate, then you know Mr Bush would lose in the general election.

    There is one, and only one, reason I’d like to see Jeb Bush as President: because it would make the left go absolutely bonkers. 🙂

    For the time being, I’m supporting Scott Walker.

  4. david7134 says:

    If Bush is given the primary (he won’t win it), then everyone will stay home.

  5. TrishMac says:

    Wait, aren’t we all supposed to vote for her simply because she is a woman? I mean, teachers are telling grade school kids that they should talk to their parents, and see if they are voting for “the woman” or not.
    A democrat doesn’t have to run any campaign. The media and liberal educators will do all their work for them.
    Republicans have to learn to not play fair, and to speak to their substance leaving social issues at a minimum, and we could win this. Not with Bush or Trump. But with just about any other candidate.

  6. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Off subject slightly, but since you brought up liberal thought. I am listening to several lectures on evolution and guess what? Liberal progressives were behind the effort to keep evolution out of schools and were the protagonist in the Scope’s trial. Goes to show that efforts to increase ignorance have not changed from the 20’s.

  7. Liam Thomas says:

    If Bush is given the primary (he won’t win it), then everyone will stay home.

    This is precisely the BullSheet that needs not happen. Jeb Bush is 10x’s better then Hillary Clinton or God Forbid Another Barak Obama in Lizzy Borden…er I mean Lizzy Warren.

    Jeb is not my first or second or third choice but if he IS the choice I will campaign for him, donate to him and actively attempt to get him elected ……..

    Because all of the above are better then Clinton/Warren which by the way will be the team to face whatever the GOP decides to throw at the two far left whacko lying, politically bought and paid for nominees of the communist party of the USA.

    The only thing worse would be Pelosi/Reid.

  8. Liam Thomas says:

    As a liberal who has watched with horror the Republican’s descent into darkness,

    Your not a liberal your a communist progressive. Your party has already made the descent into darkness. The GOP/Tea Party is in a knee jerk reaction to the far, far left politics and policies of the communist progressive democratic party who already is in the swamp up to their necks in dark policies and politics.

    Liberalism does not exist in America anymore….it has fully been replaced by progressive communism. The sad part for America is that our federally run schools no longer even allow teachers to teach the evils of communism(only the evils of capitalism)….and as such the kiddies growing up with their ME:ME:ME stance on life just love all the FREEBIES the Commies want to give everyone.

    This sorta reminds me of the hunger games….The Liberal Bastion of the capital exists to suck the rest of the nation dry for their own edification….work harder, more taxes, more goods, more, more, more. Just like Communist Russia or China or Thailand or Vietnam or Cuba.

    Work, work, work…so you can give, give, give to the CAPITAL that provides for your every need……sort of…….as long as you toe the line and dont get out of line.

  9. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    As a liberal who has watched with horror the Republican’s descent into darkness , , , ,

    What terrible “descent into darkness” would that be? Is it a terrible “descent into darkness” to believe that people who can work for a living should have to do so, rather than continuing to take money out of the pockets of working Americans to support malingerers? Is it a terrible “descent into darkness” to believe in personal responsibility, rather than some overarching in loco parentis role for the state? Is it a terrible “descent into darkness” to believe that we should pay our bills and not continue to borrow and borrow and borrow?

  10. Liam Thomas says:

    What terrible “descent into darkness” would that be? Is it a terrible “descent into darkness” to believe that people who can work for a living should have to do so, rather than continuing to take money out of the pockets of working Americans to support malingerers? Is it a terrible “descent into darkness” to believe in personal responsibility, rather than some overarching in loco parentis role for the state? Is it a terrible “descent into darkness” to believe that we should pay our bills and not continue to borrow and borrow and borrow?

    It would be awesome if you actually believed that.

  11. Liam Thomas says:

    @Dana

    LOL….sorry I actually thought that was a post by Jeffery……:)

    I was totally confused that he was stating conservative principals and claiming them as his own.

  12. jl says:

    “Republicans descent into darkness..” J wins the drama queen quote of the week award, and look!- nothing to back up his “assertion”.

  13. Jeffery says:

    j,

    It happened around 2008, coincident with the Tea Party takeover of the GOP. But it had been in the making since about 1980. Look no further than the pejorative term, RINO, re-popularized in the 00s to describe all non-fascist Republicans. Even further back, in the 60s, when libs went full in for civil rights, and the Dems shamelessly took their mantra for political salvation, the Repubs cemented themselves as the party of the white southern man, the Christian evangelical, God and country.

    So now, the Republican Party is pro- : white, Christian, gun, war, male, hetero-, corporation, nationalistic, authoritarian, and anti- : gay, science, anything but white, abortion, female, freedom, education.

    RWA = Right-wing authoritarian. Hateful, combative, loyal to your in-group, hard-working, greedy, regimented, entitled.

  14. Jeffery says:

    Is it a terrible “descent into darkness” to believe that people who can work for a living should have to do so, rather than continuing to take money out of the pockets of working Americans to support malingerers?

    Is your objection on moral grounds that some poor person may be getting something for nothing or that the overall economic burden is harming America? Or both. Most of our expenditures on non-working Americans is through Social Security and Medicare. Are you suggesting we cut their payments or eliminate them? Or are you against unemployment payments? I know it’s a foolish errand but do you have any evidence to support your notion that we have a significant number of malingerers? Of course not. If you think that this is a major problem in America, you’re a fool.

    Is it a terrible “descent into darkness” to believe in personal responsibility, rather than some overarching in loco parentis role for the state?

    Who doesn’t believe in personal responsibility except corporations?

    Is it a terrible “descent into darkness” to believe that we should pay our bills and not continue to borrow and borrow and borrow?

    What bills doesn’t the US pay? Are you against borrowing money in general or just for the US government? Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush more than doubled the national debt. Dick Cheney stated that Ronald Reagan proved deficits didn’t matter (for Republicans, I guess). The current effective interest rate is near zero that we pay back (what bills don’t we pay?) with lower value dollars. Conservative “economists” have been consistently wrong about deficit spending and debt.

    Conservative solutions are simple. Cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations. Deregulate businesses. Cut benefits for the poor and working classes. It’s always great for the wealthy and bad for the poor and working classes. Is it a coincidence that all conservative prescriptions harm the poor, the working classes, minorities but reway the wealthy?

Bad Behavior has blocked 10026 access attempts in the last 7 days.