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.