The GOP choice for President: Anyone but Rand Paul

7
1027
wikimedia

WASHINGTON, April 1, 2014 – GOP syndicate bosses are beginning to huddle to see which 2016 Presidential candidate they are going to pump corporate money into in their quest to derail the Tea Party. Evidently, they think that eight years of a bogus conservative named Bush in the White House wasn’t too much of a good thing and more of the same is in order.

The only other possibility is that the investment class has decided on Hillary as the next sock puppet–in-chief and an unelectable Republican must be shoved to the front of the pack as the human sacrifice to the Clintons.

The Washington Post reports:

“Concerned that the George Washington Bridge traffic scandal has damaged New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s political standing and alarmed by the steady rise of Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), prominent donors, conservative leaders and longtime operatives say they consider Bush the GOP’s brightest hope to win back the White House.”

To say that “prominent donors, (neo) conservative leaders and longtime operatives” are alarmed at the steady rise of Senator Paul is like saying that water makes a man who doesn’t know how to swim, nervous.


Of course they are alarmed. Philip Rucker and Robert Costa of WaPo go on to note:

“Many if not most of 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s major donors are reaching out to Bush and his confidants with phone calls, e-mails and invitations to meet, according to interviews with 30 senior Republicans. One bundler estimated that the “vast majority” of Romney’s top 100 donors would back Bush in a competitive nomination fight.”

Perhaps this is news, but it’s not terribly surprising. Corporate interests from the various ‘industrial complexes’, the ruling class and the rent seekers on K Street foam at the mouth when they consider that a rogue Republican like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz could wind up at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. What a harrowing vision – a President and Congress actually taking the premise of the GOP as the party of smaller government, literally?

There is no question that there is a small contingent of ‘BushBotz’ still savoring the swagger of ‘W’ and his military adventurism for which we have nothing to show but $4 to $6 Trillion dollars in costs, which don’t even reflect the cost in human lives. Barack Obama said that the United States military was leaving behind a “sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq.” Not only have the conditions that have been reported in Iraq revealed that statement to be the sort of lie that Obama has gained a well-earned reputation for, but Afghanistan and Libya are a disgraceful mockery to such preposterous assessments as well.

But Henry Kissinger thinks that Jeb as president is a splendid idea. Hank K. said in an interview that he would be “delighted” if Bush ran. “He would be outstanding. He is someone who is experienced, moderate and thoughtful.” If your idea of a successful return on investment vis-a-vis foreign policy, is Henry Kissinger’s portfolio, another Bush might be just the elixir.

Are there enough ‘BushBotz’ to propel Jeb to the front of the pack once primary season gets underway? Brian Ballard, a money bundler for John McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012, seems to think that enough money from the usual suspects will bombard the sensibilities of the Republican electorate. “He’s the most desired candidate out there, everybody that I know is excited about it.”

Indications exist however, that if the crony capitalists don’t get best candidate that money can buy at the end of the nomination cycle, they will disappear like some grand David Copperfield illusion. An example of that sentiment is Mark DeMoss, a Romney advisor who will rally support for Bush, but if Bush doesn’t run or a palatable substitute doesn’t emerge, will sit out the general election. “I think he is a talented, credible, thinking leader,” DeMoss said. “The question is, how much appetite is there in the Republican Party and in the general electorate for that?”

That is the question. As things stand at the present, the answer seems to be negative. The base of the Republican Party views Bush’s open border sentiments with derision. Even the evangelicals who clamor for a candidate, who will lavish empty promises about a candidate leading a new moral crusade, are fiercely opposed to one of Bush’s pet policy initiatives, Common Core.

An ABC News /Washington Post national poll, published earlier this month, shows that 48 percent of those surveyed would not vote for Jeb Bush. Chris Christie,the other major go-to candidate of the Washington / Wall Street axis, has become, by all indications permanently mired in the quicksand of Bridgegate. His negative number of 39 percent is probably the high water mark going forward.

The Liberty movement and the Tea Party will be outspent by the Sheldon Adelsons, the Paul Singers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the bankers that want to hedge their bet in case their Plan A is not palatable to voters. That means that sweat equity and a groundswell from the grassroots level will need to be unprecedented in order to change the game in 2016.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • blacktygrrrr

    This column is dishonest because it links two movements that are unrelated. The Libertarians and the Tea Party are two separate movements. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have very different views on foreign policy. Cruz is closer to the Neocons than the Paleocons. Cruz is pro-Israel. His supporters do not traffic in anti-Israel bile disguised as non-interventionism.

    I am a proud Tea Party guy who would back Ted Cruz in a heartbeat. Rand Paul? No way.

    I am also the son of retired shoolteachers who does not pal around with wealthy bankers.

    Rand Paul is desperate to be seen as like Ted Cruz. They are nothing alike.

    eric @ the Tygrrrr Express

  • RGZ_50

    Many conservatives (including myself), don’t identify entirely with the purist Libertarian dogma or fully with the Tea Party either. I consider myself as what I’ve heard referenced as ‘Libertarian Lite’. Even the editors of Reason magazine have admitted that they don’t subscribe to all the standard dogma of the movement. So, I’m a huge fan of Ted Cruz, but I like Rand Paul a lot as well.

    I’d take either one of them, but I don’t know what I’d do at this point if we get a Jeb Bush or the neocon equivalent shoved down our throats. The problem is that no matter what the party and its backers come up with is going to be on the other side of the ballot from Hillary. It will wind up being an avoidance / avoidance conflict.

    Don’t be so quick to judge Rand Paul. He does support Israel’s right to defend herself and he has been over there learning about the nuances of our important relationship with them. As Senator Paul’s position on that becomes more prominent, a lot of the Israel haters will jump ship and look for 3rd party demagogues.

    • blacktygrrrr

      Ron Paul never had the moral decency to condemn the worst elements of his movement that made the entire movement look awful. Let’s see if his son has an ounce of backbone.

      eric @ the Tygrrrr Express

      • RGZ_50

        Eric – come on buddy, let’s be objective about this – Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party, Libertarians, etc. ALL have some cranks. If Ron spent all his time responding to the kooks that attached themselves like barnacles, he’d never have accomplished anything. I don’t fully agree with ANYONE, Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, but I like and respect them all nevertheless.

        We’re going to destroy ourselves and wind up with the WORST the GOP has to offer, if the Rand Paul / Ted Cruz supporters start warring between themselves. Does that make sense?

        I think they both have a lot of leadership potential and great ideas and I don’t want to prop one up by knocking the other down. That’s a recipe for Bush vs. Clinton 2016. Let’s not go there.

  • andii38

    Ted Cruz? Never. Rand Paul has my vote.

  • J.

    Rand would have my vote. Politicians like Christie, Huckabee, and Bush are the reason why the GOP have a bad wrap. If the GOP wants to lose so badly they should run with Blue Dog McCain.

  • Lisa Delaurenti

    What a mess. I would never vote for Bush or Christie. They’re BOTH bad guys! The GOP had better get their crap together.