What It Is, or Isn't, about Jeb

If you watch the coverage of the Republican candidates, you certainly are aware that the Donald Trump phenomenon -- The Donald sucking all the air out of the room no matter how many candidates are in the same location --is quite real.  We watch in rapt attention as he is guaranteed to say or do something that will grab the headlines and choke off the air supply to the other 15 candidates.

What I watch, however, is also how the remaining gasps of air (time) are allocated to the others in the field.  After the debate, for example, extra chunks of coverage went to Carly Fiorina, who had a great debate on the undercard, some to Marco Rubio who was excellent on the main, prime-time stage, and also to ... Jeb Bush.

Jeb Bush?  Was he even there at the debate?  Nobody, not even his family, could think that Jeb had anything other than a steady, non-threatening, vanilla debate.  He had a debate performance so dramatically undramatic, so perfectly in keeping with his actual persona, that it is hard to recall anything he did or said.  But he was prominent on the news thereafter, and that's a mystery.

Now, let's get this out of the way.  John Ellis ("Jeb") Bush is distinguished by more than his last name and being the son and brother of former presidents.  He is a competent speaker, was certainly an excellent and popular governor in Florida, and would be a competent, if unspectacular president.  He speaks Spanish, not a bad thing (I suspect that Hillary only knows the word "dinero").  I really don't have any animus toward Jeb, and wouldn't cry if he were president.

But I would cry if he were the nominee.

Conservatism needs both a spokesman (to make the case) and a leader (to implement it).  The problem with Jeb is that he is just not a spokesman for anything.  Ted Cruz can sell.  Marco Rubio can sell, albeit in a different way, and speaks equally fluent Spanish.  Christie, Fiorina, even Ben Carson, in a completely different manner, can sell.  Trump, well, of course -- the guy doesn't even use notes!  Jeb, well, not so much.

And we need someone not just to execute with Congress but to persuade the people in the general election of the need for conservative, constitutional principles to rescue the country.  That's not always an easy sell.  Communication skills are squarely at the top of the list.

So why is Bush, who is consistently at the upper-middle of polling (I'll bet it's for the reasons just noted), getting any air time at all? Why, for example, is Fox, of all networks, paying more attention to him than to Ben Carson?

Look, I understand that the blather about the "establishment" isn't really blather, and that a composite of big donors and the inert Republicans in Congress, along with some inside-the-Beltway writers, are probably big Jebbites, perhaps because they see some inevitability that I don't.

I've already explained what I want to see in a candidate, and that hasn't changed a bit.  If I, or the "establishment", or Fox News Channel, wants to see a Republican in the White House in 2017 as something other than a visitor, the party needs to select a candidate who can convince non-conservatives to trust him or her as their president.  The Electoral College math is simply too fragile to entrust the nomination to "slow but steady."  It's not about how to win the nomination; it's about winning the election.

So why the extra air time for Jeb, we ask; why so much featured time?  I can only assume that between the donors, the friends in Congress and in the media, they prefer the reliable and inoffensive former governor to those who push the envelope a bit.  If their disproportionate airing of him (vs. non-Trumps) is any indication, Fox News wants him to be the nominee, even if the rank and file in the party do not.

I believe in conservative principles.  I want my fellow Americans to learn to believe in them, too, but I don't have the bully pulpit to advocate for them, unless you consider this column for the last year as advocacy of a kind.  That's why I want a candidate who can really get gritty, envelope-pushing and strong in their presentation of their convictions.  At least half a dozen of the current candidates fit that model.

Jeb, alas, does not.  He needs to be a reliable supporter of whoever is the nominee instead.  That, I believe, I could support.

 Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton
 Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu.