This is what I call a potential “back to the future” match-up or what the National Review has called Establishment vs. Establishment.
Then over at Forbes, John Zogby had a piece with the headline: Jeb vs. Mitt: Good For The GOP.
Perhaps some of you have a slightly different opinion?
The Washington Post tackled this clash of country clubs with a widely reported piece by Philip Rucker and Robert Costa headlined, “For Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, a history of ambition fuels a possible 2016 collision.”
Here was my favorite sentence from that piece with a quote from Weekly Standard editor, Bill Kristol:
“A Cruz-Bush race is pretty straightforward and ideological. A Romney-Bush race would be more personal — about whose turn it is and who is owed it.”
(I added the bold.)
Gee, is this what the GOP nomination boils down to — either a race that is ideological vs. whose turn it is and who is owed it?
In either case, if these are the two camps within our party than the GOP is doomed to defeat in 2016.
First, ideology by itself is NOT leadership until that ideology finds its way into signed legislation. Second, “whose turn it is and who is owed it” is a revolting political premise for either party.
Instead, how about asking these two questions:
“As a party who can we nominate who can win and is best suited to lead our nation through dangerous times ahead?”
“Who can we nominate who can win and reverse our decline as a great economic and military superpower?”
I welcome your answers and tell me if I am not asking the proper questions.