Monday, May 18, 2015

Jeb Bush: "Perfect Candidate Existed 2000 Years Ago"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Political strategists say probable presidential candidate Jeb Bush had a very bad week, last week.

Indeed he did. He even stumbled in his Fox interview.

Saturday in Iowa City, a reporter from the Washington Post asked him why he wasn't better prepared to answer the questions everybody knew he would be asked? And does that suggest a sign of weakness in his probable candidacy?

Bush replied, "Nah...we are all going to make mistakes. If you're looking for the perfect candidate he probably existed 2,000 years ago."

Most of us get that. Jesus was perfect. We are not. We also get that Jesus wasn't running for anything. He already was something. He is God. Politicians are not God, although some would like to be.

What politicians seem to consistently miss is that most of us "non-elite" folks are not looking for a "perfect" candidate.

Ironically, The New York Times, of all newspapers, may have at least brushed the truth this past weekend about what we the people actually "do" want in a candidate.


I could have titled this article, "Jeb Bush and Jesus," pointing out his recognition that Jesus was, and is perfect, but he, Jeb, the probable candidate, is not.

A majority of Americans already know that.

And this is not really about Jeb Bush.

The Washington Post goes to great length to explain what most conservatives and Christians also already know about the likely number of Republican candidates who want to be president.

The Republican field of candidates will probably end up being 15 to 20 candidates. Can you imagine the debates and debacles we will see over the next year and a half?

The Post says, hopefully, "With no clear front runner and Bush so far unable to consolidate his path to the nomination...This could cost presidential aspirants tens of millions of dollars; pull them far to the right ideologically, from hot button social issues to foreign policy; and jeopardize their general election chances."

The Post says, "Candidates will be rewarded for finding creative ways to gain notice," quoting concerned Republican leaders who are saying,  "We're in a danger zone."

They are.

The GOP is in a danger zone, I believe, because of the notion that conservatives can't win. Each election we go through the same ritual---the Party backs the "moderate" who is often more liberal than "moderate" in the primaries, helping to fund the attempt to convince the conservatives he/she is one of us. Then in the general election their dogma goes, they come-out as moderate and win over all the Independents.

That has really worked out well for Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney hasn't it?

This next election may well be the most important in American history due to the "remaking of America" that has and is transpiring under current leadership.

But the leader America is really looking for in these perilous times may not be the embodiment of modern day American politics and pundits or the ability to creatively find ways to "gain notice."

It may be---dare I say it out loud?

Character.

In my mind the New York Times is a champion of only the far left progressive movement and agenda; and regular columnist Frank Burni most often advances that ideology.

However, in his article, "The Bitter Back Drop To 2016," written for the New York Times and carried by other newspapers including the Seattle Times, he may have lighted a candle in the darkness of the "enlightened" world.

Bruni says, "But there's a climate in this country that's larger than any contender, strangely resistant to the sorts of ups and downs that a campaign endures and as crucial to the outcome of the election as the clash of personalities that commands the lion's share of our attention."

"The climate," he says, "is a mood of overarching uncertainty and profound anxiety. And it's so ingrained at this point that we tend to overlook it."

He writes, "For a stunningly long period now, American voters have been pessimistic about the country's future---and their own. They sense that both at home and abroad, we have lost ground and keep losing more."

To support the idea that Americans have, for more than a decade, felt both anxious and uncertain, he quotes a number of polls.

Most of us don't need a poll. We already knew that as well. It's clear to a majority that we are on the wrong track.

A gathering of professors, politicians and writers met late last week at the Wilson Center in Washington DC to discuss the continuing, growing pessimism in America.

Their discussion centered on this question: "Is America at a Crossroads?" ---with specific panels discussing the related questions: "America's Decline: Myth or Reality?" and "Is The United States Still The Indispensable Nation?"

Their conclusions will probably be published within a week or so.

Frank Bruni touched the truth when he concluded in his NYT's article, "And the presidency may well be determined not by any candidate's fine-tuned calibration on hot button issues or by cunning electoral arithmetic...If one of the aspirants can give creditable voice to Americans' insecurity and trace a believable path out of it, he or she will almost certainly be victorious."

He says, "Politicians and voters will wrangle in the foreground over taxes, the minimum wage, student debt, immigration. But in the background looms a crises of confidence that threatens to become the new American way. Let's hope for a candidate with the vision and courage to tackle that."

Character.

Virtue.

Not perfection.

A look back gives us a clear vision for the future: "Your love of liberty---your respect for the laws---your habits of industry---and your practice of the moral and religious obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness." George Washington--to the residents of Boston, October 27, 1789.

Bruni touched the truth. Why would we even consider the politician who is merely the greatest pretender, when we can choose one who is for real?

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.


8 comments:

  1. America's insecurity....yes, still can't find much .22 LR. We know we 're going down the wrong path. We need a government that will not try to be God... as big, or powerful, or as all knowing, for such a thing is impossible.
    What we want is a smaller, more responsible government that returns to the constitution God gave us, and to him who defines life and how to live it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you seriously think Jesus could survive a primary in this modern republican party promoting things like feeding the poor and healing the sick?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's remember that Jesus always asked such things of the individual follower rather than of the local government. As he was back then, I think he is still today. I hope many in politics do give to feed the poor and are willing to support those who minister to the sick in whatever way they can, of their own resources.

      I communicated to one politician once who seemed to believe that it was my responsibility as a Christian to ask him to spend more government money on the poor. I didn't really understand him at first. I thought he was saying that I should be encouraging him to give out of his own resources to the poor.

      Delete
  3. I believe our constitution is a gift of God's grace, something we received as the nation's founders walked through some difficult matters together, and through that, some of the wisdom of God came forward through God fearing men. To the measure of God's grace, along with our need, and in answer to many prayers, it came to us. We have as much of God's answer that we received. And it was called the constitution of the United States of America.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What America needs is a statesman, not a politician.

    While I am not looking for a "perfect" candidate, I do require one with a grasp of, and commitment to, the standard of a Biblical worldview, adherence to strict Constitutional limits according to the original intent of the framers and devotion to the principles of liberty. I also require more than campaign rhetoric, but some sort of track record of devotion to these values indicating that the candidate will not cave to the immense pressures they will face once elected.

    So far, only Rand Paul and prospective candidate, Darrell Castle, meet this standard in my book. Cruz and Rubio, like Mr. Obama before them, fail to meet the natural born citizen requirement and so are removed from consideration.

    If you want a good standard to measure the candidates by, please consider the words of my friend, the late Howard Phillips, who served in the Nixon administration, as he makes the "Case for a Constitutional Presidency" http://www.cpofwa.org/2015/05/12/howard-phillips-case-for-a-constitutional-presidency/

    ReplyDelete
  5. What America needs is a statesman, not a politician.

    While I am not looking for a "perfect" candidate, I do require one with a grasp of, and commitment to, the standard of a Biblical worldview, adherence to strict Constitutional limits according to the original intent of the framers and devotion to the principles of liberty. I also require more than campaign rhetoric, but some sort of track record of devotion to these values indicating that the candidate will not cave to the immense pressures they will face once elected.

    So far, only Rand Paul and prospective candidate, Darrell Castle, meet this standard in my book. Cruz and Rubio, like Mr. Obama before them, fail to meet the natural born citizen requirement and so are removed from consideration.

    If you want a good standard to measure the candidates by, please consider the words of my friend, the late Howard Phillips, who served in the Nixon administration, as he makes the "Case for a Constitutional Presidency"

    ReplyDelete
  6. As I understand it, both of Cruz's parents were American Citizens when he was born, but that they happened to be out of the country (in Canada) at the time of his birth, and that his American Citizenship is well established and legal, no?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ted Cruz was born in Candada to an American mother and Cuban father. He had dual citizenship until he recently renounced his Canadian citizenship. Some believe that qualifies him to be President, others say not. Being a "Constitutionist," I say we need to interpret the Constitutional requirement of "Natural Born" in light of what the framers of the Constitution most likely intended. There is a very scholarly article, beginning on the 4th page, of this newsletter http://cpofohio.org/newsletter.html that makes the case (quite convincingly in my opinion) that "Natural Born" was understood to mean both parents being U.S. citizens so as to avoid dual citizenship and any possibility of dual loyalty. I don't question Mr. Cruz's loyalty, but I believe we must adhere to the U.S. Constitution and it's original intent or else join the liberal, progressive, evolutionists who believe the Constitution is evolving and means whatever we decide it means on any given day.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.