DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... GOP continues incestuous relationship with itself

David Kochel, Romney’s Iowa Strategist, Jumps to Bush

David Kochel, a Republican strategist based in Iowa who worked on both of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns, is joining Jeb Bush’s political action committee as a senior strategist and is in line to serve as Mr. Bush’s national campaign manager.

“David is one of the most talented state-based operatives in the nation and brings a different focus and different set of priorities to our effort to communicate Governor Bush’s focus on economic and social mobility,” said Sally Bradshaw, Mr. Bush’s longtime strategist.

The move to tap Mr. Kochel, who advised Mr. Romney for over six years, represents a shot across the bow of the 2012 Republican nominee, who is now considering a third bid for the White House.

Mr. Kochel offered only praise for Mr. Romney, while also promoting Mr. Bush’s strengths.

“I really believe Governor Bush is the right person for the right time,” he said. “He has a successful conservative record in Florida, and I’d put that record up against anybody else.”

Mr. Kochel is moving this spring to Miami to join Mr. Bush’s national effort, but his hiring also indicates that Mr. Bush is likely to compete aggressively in Iowa, where hard-line conservatives are a force in Republican contests.

“There are a number of people here who will be interested in signing up,” Mr. Kochel said. “You compete everywhere because that’s how you win delegates.”

Mr. Kochel, a native of central Iowa, worked his way up in state politics, serving as state party executive director in his 20s and, most recently, as a senior adviser to Senator Joni Ernst in her vaunted campaign last year. A direct mail strategist, he has also worked on a number of campaigns outside Iowa.

Mr. Bush’s advisers declined to speak about what the hiring said regarding Mr. Romney, but emphasized that they are fond of Mr. Kochel in part because he is not based in Washington and his political experience is mostly in state races.

“This is a reflection of Governor Bush’s intent, should he go forward with a campaign, to make the race focused on early states, Super Tuesday states and running governors-style races,” said a senior adviser to Mr. Bush. “This is not going to be a D.C.-driven, top-down structure. That’s not the Jeb Bush way.”

There has been intense speculation in Washington in recent weeks that Mr. Bush was likely to tap an operative based in the capital and the matter of who to hire had even become a topic of some debate within Mr. Bush’s circle. One name often mentioned as a likely prospect, and reported by CNN as such this week, was Sara Fagen, who was once White House political director under George W. Bush.

But Mr, Kochel has long been close to a close adviser to Mr. Bush, Mike Murphy – the two worked together in the campaigns of Gov. Terry Branstad of Iowa – and has been friends with Ms. Bradshaw since they both began helping Mr. Romney early in the 2008 presidential election cycle.

Mr. Bush’s loyalists are determined to create an identity for him separate from his brother, former President George W. Bush. But in organizing the makings of a presidential campaign, they are reprising the early moves of the former president.

Ahead of his 2000 campaign, George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, relied mostly on advice from his own cadre of Texas-based strategists, creating some distance from operatives connected to his father, former President George Bush.

Jumping from a losing candidate to one that cannot win. Brilliant!

Bro, that's what they do. It seems with the republicans, it's all about household names.

man if rand paul had a legitimate shot, i'd even vote for him.

but republicans what their cookie-cutter, piss off the majority of americans candidate.

that's why i say over and over. they won't be sniffing the white house.

I'm not a fan of Jeb, but I'd like to hear what he has to say. Why do you say he can't win?

Too close to George W. Bush.

Their primary model hurts them in presidential elections.

They turn their primaries into throwing out red meat to the circus, and then have to spend the general backpedaling furiously. I also think it creates a bubble where the candidates believe that the things that were effective in a primary will play in a general, when it fact it usually devastates them.

Romney is a good example.

With the Koch Bros prepared to spend nearly $900M on the campaigns, I'm sure their opinion will matter most.

They'll likely win the White House following two terms of Obama no matter who they select.

Personally, I like Ted Cruz or Mike Lee myself. There are a few House members I like, but they don't often get nominated.

If the GOP nominates a current governor, I kind of like New Mexico governor Susana Martinez or Paul LePage of Maine.

Because the Republican base won't vote for him. The establishment Republicans will love him. The rank-and-file GOP voter will wholeheartedly reject him emphatically. There won't be much of the 'hold the nose' crowd in 2016 for the GOP.

To be perfectly honest, I believe that those who are behind Jeb Bush or any other squishy Republican candidates really do not want to win the presidency and would be just as happy with a Democrat in the office.

I'm sure running a rodeo clown would really help the party's chances.

Romney was a horrible candidate. Before him, McCain was a horrible candidate. Before him, Bush was a horrible candidate who won only because the Democratic candidates were even worse. Before him, Dole was a horrible candidate. Bush the Elder was a horrible candidate whose presidency led to an insurgent campaign by H. Ross Perot.

If these are the best candidates that the GOP can put up there, is it any wonder why I left them nearly 20 years ago?

They aren't running G.W. Bush again, are they?

The Koch bros won't elect anyone or get a candidate nominated.

If that were the case, Romney would have been elected.

He was a far more viable candidate than Cruz.

Okay. We all know how viable of a candidate Obama was when he was first elected. Wasn't Hillary the presumptive Democratic nominee then? Oops.

He was a very viable candidate, as evidenced by the fact that he won.

I didn't say anything about buying elections but they WILL have a say in who the GOP candidate is in 2016.

Not really. Like Bush the Younger, he won because he was relatively unknown and the GOP put up a horrible candidate (McCain) against him.

No more than I would if I wished to have any say in what the GOP does.

He was a very viable candidate, as evidenced by the fact that he won. [/quote]

Not really. [/quote]

When speaking in relation to a political candidate, 'viable' means 'has a chance to win'.

Kind of hard to argue that a candidate who twice won election didn't have a viable chance to do so.

Not to mention Obama's first campaign was such a sweeping success even before the general election that it really did seem like the GOP side just gave McCain the elder statesman run to waive the white flag.

Regardless, I would love for the '16 to be Bush v. Clinton and for people to be so sick of it that a viable independent candidate on BOTH sides came out against them.

But, sadly, that wouldn't likely happen.

It was such a slick packaged commodity. Obama was more or less an Apple product.

Easily the best campaign since Reagan.

I think when he's trying to argue against Obama's viability as a candidate, he's just arguing that he doesn't like him.

No one could have beaten the guy in '08. It was a near flawless marketing campaign.

Then the word 'viable' can be applied to ANY candidate.



By that definition, every candidate is 'viable'. By weirder standards, non-candidates are even 'viable' (see: the 2000 Senate election in Missouri). Gov. Mel Carnahan's wife replaced him in the Senate after the deceased man won and the new governor (who took over office for him) appointed her to the seat without her ever having to face the voters.

If it's Bush vs. Clinton, I laugh at the country and I may even renounce my citizenship and move to Switzerland.

Bye.

OMG, another round of Bush vs Clinton would make me sick.

Neither one of those names should ever get associated with the White House ever again.

No it cannot.



By that definition, every candidate is 'viable'. By weirder standards, non-candidates are even 'viable' (see: the 2000 Senate election in Missouri). Gov. Mel Carnahan's wife replaced him in the Senate after the deceased man won and the new governor (who took over office for him) appointed her to the seat without her ever having to face the voters. [/quote]

I'm sorry, what are you rambling about?

We're talking about viability as a presidential candidate.

I know you think you're bright, but you tend to outhink yourself in your attempt to appear so.

Not every presidential candidate is 'viable' by the parameters of my definition.

For example, Donald Trump. Dennis Kucinich. Herman Cain. Ralph Nader. Ted Cruz. Al Sharpton. Sarah Palin...

Those folks aren't viable.

While I agree with you. On the other hand, with Bush, maybe the 3rd time is a charm.

I don't think Cruz belongs in this grouping.

That's really reaching, the elections in this country are incredibly cyclical. They swing back and forth for the most part. People were saying the exact same thing about the democratic party when Bush went two terms. I remember it distinctly as I said the same thing I just said to you to those saying the democrats were in huge trouble.

It's early, but I don't see any great candidates on either side. Shocking!

All of those discounting Jeb might want to think twice. I've heard people on both sides talk about their respect for him. I haven't done any research yet, too early, and the Bush name will hurt him, but there is a lot of time left in this process.

I'd like to see a viable candidate not bought off by the same entities as everyone else. I'd like to think that will one day happen.

IMHO, Jeb's chances will not be lie in how far he can distance himself from GW, but in how well he can present himself and his vision during The Grind.

If he HAS a 'national vision,' and can stick to it, despite all the efforts to tie him to GW, his chances are every bit as good as any candidate the Dems can trot out.... and at this point, I'm not totally certain that HRC will actually be that candidate.

Both parties were in dire need of "fresh faces" in 2008... and I'm absolutely certain that Barack Obama's meteoric rise to national prominence was due (at least in part) to 'voter fatigue.'

As I see them, the GOP isn't yet ready to fully commit to a younger, fresher face as their representative for a national election. Too many of their established Power Brokers are still in place- and Old People are notoriously guilty of being entrenched in old ways of thinking.

Mitt Romney's recent announcement that wouldn't run for a third time spelled it out pretty well: he announced that he would step aside- to let a younger, fresher candidate take up the mantle. That was the message... but I'm not sure that the GOP will hear it.

That leaves a LOT of room for Jeb to assume the front-runner's position. If he can stay on-point for the next 12 months, he stands a very good chance of owning the Primaries, given the quality of candidates he'll be competing with. Most of them are either reanimated corpses from the past primary campaign- or guys like Rand Paul, who have yet to establish themselves within the party as players who can deliver.

Like the Cleveland Browns' game day roster, the R pool is seriously lacking in quality depth, as is evidenced by the current cast of clowns. The Establishment R's will NEVER cede their White House hopes to the likes of Santorum, Cruz, Huckabee, Perry, or even Lindsey Graham. Of the current pool of VIABLE candidates, that leaves Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and maybe George Pataki. Not exactly a "Murderer's Row" of political heavy hitters.

The Outliers:

Ben Carson? -A sideshow feature, at best. He'll NEVER get enough support to mount a serious campaign

Sarah Palin? Been there, done that. Can't compete with a doorknob on an IQ test. Political suicide, even as a VP 'coattail-rider.

Ted Cruz? Dude might as well have been born in Kenya. Think the Dems won't 'go there,' after The Birthers went after BHO? You KNOW they will. Besides, the Establishment GOP will look at The American Electoral Metric, determine that he's too polarizing a figure to run on the national ticket- and make sure that he's not the person who runs (think: Charles & David Koch).

I could easily see a Bush v. Clinton spectacle... though I'd have no enthusiasm for choosing between either of them.

IMHO, the best times might commence when either of these two are set to be replaced, after one term or two.


Hope.
Change.

Agreed.

So the great DR.Ben Carson is a side show to you,why cause he is a conservative? He is probably the most accomplished ,and fair minded candidate running in either party but I know where you are coming from pal.

Actually this was a response to CLEM...sorry for the confusion

Most likely not only accomplished and fair-minded but the candidate who could be most honest and still be appealing to the electorate. He most likely, as an accomplished surgeon, has less to hide than any other candidate.

If you have not read the book "Gifted Hands", it is about the life of Dr. Ben Carson and offers a peek into his life. It would seem he genuinely cares about life, people and building a productive society.

As a candidate, he would pique my interest!! Especially if we are moving in a Bush/Clinton direction.

He has no experience in the political arena. He's going to be Herman Cain 2.0 except smarter. His kind, fringe candidates, are the type of people who won't let the Republicans see a president in 2016.

Carson believes legalizing same-sex marriage is analogous to the fall of the roman empire; let's not even mention that he suggests Christian business would poison cakes for same-sex marriages...Sorry, I wouldn't like such an individual having sway over our national social policy.

jc

In my opinion, Chris Christie is the only viable candidate the GOP has at this point. Pretty sure I'm not missing anyone.

No way another Bush get's into office this soon. Maybe in the future but GW killed Jebs chances this time around.

If the GOP nominates Chris Christie, I will abstain from voting.