Other Bush becomes President

I caught this article in the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago, just before the State of the Union speech.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901364.html

Hopefully the link still works. Anyway, the article talks about a Jeb Bush presidency, and even starts out with a WI. While this 'other' Bush may still run, the column poses the question---with its own POD--of what would have happened had Jeb won the Governor's race in 1994, rather than not winning until 1998 (the '94 was pretty close). The writer speculates, assuming that JBush wins re-election as Gov of FL in '98 in the ATL, that he runs instead of George W. in 2000 for the Presidency.

I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts how things might be different--if at all--if Jeb ran rather than Dubya, based in an alternative outcome in '94.
 
Thanks for bringing my attention to that article; it's very well written. I don't know much about Jeb, so I'm afraid that I can't answer the WI any better than the writer did -- Jeb would have been ideologically almost identical, but would have been more steadfast without alienating, and in general more competent.
 

Glen

Moderator
It is an interesting article. I tend to like Jeb more, and I definitely see his FEMA doing better in Katrina than OTL's response.

I think he'd be more likely to win outright in this scenario in 2000, leading to less of a rocky start there.

There are some differences between the brothers, but yeah, you could see him as similar ideology, better presentation and execution.
 
Jeb is married to a Latina woman and their son, George Bush III, looks more like Mom.

Lots of Hispanic votes there. It would be hard for people to accuse him of being hostile to minorities if he's married to one.
 
Jeb would´ve been the better one back in 2000, but I don´t think USA really needs another Bush right now.

And I doubt they want it either. However had he run and been victorious in 2000 his foreign policy would be interesting.

He worked in a bank in Venezuela for 2 years. How would Jeb Bush have dealt with Chaves?
 
Could his wife be an issue for racists not to vote republican?
Among Southern racists, his Catholicism would likely be a bigger issue than his marrage to Columbia Bush. Those who would disapprove of him on religious grounds don't have alot of other choices, so if anything they'd probably either vote Republican or just stay home and have all their states (except maybe Louisiana, or West Virginia and Arkansas if he can piss off the unions) go to the Republicans anyway. Black racists and white racists from New England (yes, they do exist) may be more convinced to vote Democrat, but from what I've noticed most of them seem to do so already.
My brother used to work for guy who taught their children piano lessons. He was not all that impressed with the family, especially Mrs. Bush's "don't you know who I am" attitude towards those who displease her. Maybe this is common for rich people, I wouldn't know. Read somewhere that she has a penchant for extravagant shopping sprees; any opposition might could put her off as some sort of Imelda Marcos character (not a particularly safe thing to do).
 
Hi there, and thanks for the good responses.

After looking over this topic some more, I realized there would be significant changes to the TL even before 2000. Were Jeb Bush to win in 1994 against Gov. Lawton Chiles---a very likely scenario given the Republican ‘tsunami’ in the US elections, Chiles’ health concerns, and that J.Bush led through part of the campaign---there would significant changes b4 2000, ones that go beyond just FL. A lot occurred in Chiles’ 2nd term (94-98). This includes the 11.3 billion $ settlement by the tobacco industry to the state of FL, something in Chiles did around ’97 or so—which inspired other states to take on smoking in this way (Mississippi had a settlement before FL, but didn’t garner as much attention as Florida’s, partly since it was out of court). With Jeb as Gov., this would likely not have happened. Also, in the late 90s Chiles appointed judges to FL’s Supreme Court. If J. Bush appointed judges during this period instead, it would likely produce different outcomes than OTL in subsequent cases, including the Schiavo case. As a side note, Chiles was not in the best of health (he died in ’98 just b4 the end of his 2nd term), and might possibly pass away sooner if he lost in ’94.

As for the 2000 Presidential election, Gov. Jeb Bush, who had won re-election as Gov. of FL in ’98 (granted that’s not a given, but hey…), wins the states his brother won in OTL. Jeb also wins FL, as he is ‘from’ there, and as such there isn’t that whole business from OTL.:) Gov. Bush of Texas helps get out the Republican vote in that state also. As someone who has experience reaching out to swing voters—I believe Dem voters outnumber Repbl voters in FL—Jeb manages to get a broader grp of voters (compared to his brother in OTL). He does more outreach with Hispanic voters in particular. The resulting election in the ATL 2000 is won more handedly by this Bush, which granted isn’t saying much. However, without a contested election, this Bush brother starts out his first term more confidently as a result.

Where it goes from there…hmmmm…
 
Damar, that sounds reasonable. Its likely that, in 2000, Jeb Bush would win Florida by a decent margin, and probably New Mexico as well (it went to Gore by about the same margin as Florida did for Bush OTL, and Jeb Bush has more appeal among Hispanic voters). I don't see any other states swinging one way or another; its possible that a racism factor might swing Missouri or West Virginia against Jeb, but I doubt it. Maybe Wisconsin, Iowa, or Oregon goes to Jeb as well, if he does better in the debates and has a good running-mate (Maybe Lamar Alexander, if he's willing - he's a good moderate conservative from Tennessee, Gore's home state. Elizabeth Dole, Dick Cheney, and George Allen are also possibilities). It won't exactly be a landslide though, just no scandal.

Bush's political positions are broadly similar to his brother, but he is a more eloquent speaker - he doesn't seem to act dumb, for one thing. He's pretty big on education reform; one of the programs he instituted in Florida was having schools graded on their performance and offering kids at failing schools the option of attending private schools with vouchers (I think, I know it was implemented when I was in middle school, just before when I left Florida). He has been fairly popular and successful as Governor, he won re-election quite handily in 2002 and helped his successor, Charlie Crist, win the governor's race by a decent margin during a heavily anti-Republican year (it didn't hurt that the Democratic candidates weren't that great, either).

My brother worked in Jeb Bush's campaign during 1994; he worked quite a bit with Jeb's son George P. Bush. He introduced me to Jeb Bush at the time. I think it would have been good for America had Jeb won in '94 and then became President in 2000. If nothing else, a clearer victory in 2000 would have provided a longer rest period between the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Iraq war to feed the radical leftist fringe of the Democrats.
 
Butterflies being what they are....

Perhaps D'Amato wins reelection over Schumer in 1998, and is Jeb Bush's running-mate in 2000. This could give Bush an even greater mandate if New York swings his way.
 
It probably depends on what Jeb's cabinet would be. A common misconception many people have with the Bush administration now is that all the ideas that are carried out by the administration are the ideas of Bush himself. In reality, though, this isn't true. Bush is merely a puppet run by Neo-Conservatives. Sad, but true...
 
It probably depends on what Jeb's cabinet would be. A common misconception many people have with the Bush administration now is that all the ideas that are carried out by the administration are the ideas of Bush himself. In reality, though, this isn't true. Bush is merely a puppet run by Neo-Conservatives. Sad, but true...

While advisors do always influence executive policy, big decisions still rest with the CinC.
 
Bump. I was going to post a new thread, but since this one exists…

He has been fairly popular and successful as Governor, he won re-election quite handily in 2002 and helped his successor, Charlie Crist, win the governor's race by a decent margin during a heavily anti-Republican year

That's not actually true—Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist are locked in a war for Florida and the future of the Republican Party itself. See Are You Ready To Rumble and Charlie's Horse both by S.V. Dáte (the guy who wrote that What Would Jeb Do? Washington Post article that started this thread).



Anyway, I felt like creating a Jeb Bush thread as I was reading an article, See Jeb Not Run (yes, GQ has done a small handful of really good political pieces), and it sprung to mind again.

The thing is Jeb Bush holds pretty much the same policy viewpoints as his brother, he's just smarter (or at least more involved) and more competent. ETA: One downside is that he doesn't surround himself with smart people—I don't know how well his method of being Governor would scale up to the Presidency.

So, what happens? I imagine, as mentioned upthread, his victory over Gore is a little larger than OTL and there's no stealing of the election which should improve the partisan atmosphere of Washington a touch. (I personally like the POD of George Bush becoming baseball commissioner and butterflies lead to Jeb winning in 1994.)

So he comes into office, clear popular vote and electoral college victor.

Priorities? Similar to his brother's and similar to Florida ones—tax cuts for the rich, education reform with standardized testing, education reform with vouchers.

Let's say he gets the tax cuts through in 2001, but education is forced to wait until 2003 because he is insistent on vouchers. September 11th is used by him as it used by George Bush IOTL—as a prop to win in 2002, and as an excuse to gather more power into the Presidency and to weaken civil liberties and the like. Afghanistan? Certainly. Iraq? Sure, but done like the generals wanted—more troops, less crazy "Iraq will love us" stuff, and competently keeping the existing Iraqi army and state structure to maintain order.

So come 2004. Similar tax cuts, broader education reform, and an Iraq war going better all add up to the same thing: an easy re-election. Whoever the nominee is (probably Kerry but possibly Gephardt since Dean will have less effect with a better Iraq war and will fade while Dean/Gephardt won't need to destroy each other in Iowa, Edwards is still unseasoned, and Clark will likely still fizzle) loses somewhat more.

Let's say Jeb Bush keeps most/all of his previous states and makes inroads elsewhere among Hispanics. A lot like OTL George Bush, but a little more.

His second term priorities are, again, similar. Privatization of Medicare as he did in Florida (instead of social security, as OTL George Bush tried) might atop the list. Combine that with more school vouchers, more tax cuts, and so forth and we have an agenda.

Immigration is the issue, though. He's almost certain to be pro-immigration—both because of his wife, and because he supports the business wing of the Republican Party (although he is a social conservative as well), and finally because Hispanics are a vitally important electoral group.

Does he get killed on it like George did? Or does he push whatever he wanted through? I would wager that Medicare is less nerve racking than Social Security, and with Iraq going better he probably has somewhat more influence than George Bush had and so it's quite possible that his immigration reform passes.

What next? Obvious the current conditions of America (shrinking middle class, massive income disparity analogous to the 1920s, etc…) are the same under Jeb Bush as George Bush, but with a far more successful Presidency and a pretty decent looking Iraq the Republican Party is much more able to mount a challenge in 2008.

Further they'll be facing, in all likelihood, Hillary Clinton the centrist Democrat (Obama won't have quite the power without Iraq). In other words, a Democrat that offers no particular points of difference against the Republican 2008 nominee except being a little to the left—not a compelling choice for anybody.

With a more successful Jeb Bush Presidency, Hillary Clinton's negatives are not balanced by a resurgent Democratic Party and independent voters revolt against the GOP in 2006 and onwards and so she goes down to defeat. With her defeat (yet another moderate Democrat loses to conservative Republican™) also comes the victory of the populist/left-wing/progressive element of the party "a choice, not an echo" might be their rallying cry, in full acknowledgement of Goldwater and what ended up happening.

That leaves ? as the new President, and here we have to determine 1) Jeb Bush's VP, and 2) the Republican primary race in 2008.

It also drastically changes the landscape. What happens to the populist Republicans—Huckabee and Crist, for example—who don't believe in the failing (though now masked by Hispanic support) combo of social/fiscal/neo conservatives? What happens to the Democratic Party that is now actively trying to determine a left-wing platform of Big Ideas?

Anyway. It's certainly an interesting idea. The Bush Presidency with all the same problems but masked by seeming success or even some real success on a range of issues.
 
Last edited:
Top