The Worst Argument Ever For Jeb Vs. Hillary

Mark McKinnon, the former George W. Bush ad man, may have set out to argue why America should pick its presidents from between two immediate families, but the resulting article reads more like a list of reasons why “Jeb vs. Hillary” is a terrible idea, at least from a Tea Party perspective.

McKinnon, who begged off John McCain’s 2008 presidential run because he didn’t feel “comfortable” attacking Barack Obama, laughably says former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would “represent” “Middle America.”

In support of this thesis, McKinnon notes Bush recently called illegally crossing the border an “act of love” and emphatically supports Common Core education standards, which drew opposition from “local control jihadists” who oppose granting the federal government increased power over education.

Writing in the Daily Beast, McKinnon also writes that Bush and Hillary, unlike members of the American public who have not had their brother and father or husband serve as president, have a network of would-be aides that “actually know what they are doing” when it comes to running the federal government.

Additionally, McKinnon argues, debates between Bush and Hillary would be scintillating. “I’d pay per view to watch them debate,” he writes.

McKinnon is co-founder of No Labels, the ultimate “Boomtown” movement that is a home to “centrist” politicians on both sides (see: Evan Bayh, Jon Huntsman) that are despised by their respective bases for putting the interests of the bipartisan permanent political class above all else.

So it is no surprise then that McKinnon believes a potential 2016 presidential contest between the two politicians who arguably most epitomize the permanent political class would be “great for America.”