A.B. Stoddard: Bush’s refusal to bend

Jeb Bush isn’t rusty, nor is he a novice. His inability this week to criticize the 2003 invasion of Iraq, even in hindsight, is not a result of indecision or ignorance. He is agonizing. And while his loyalty might cost him the GOP presidential nomination next year, it is admirable.

Critics on the right and the left have jumped on Bush for telling Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly on Monday that he, as well as Hillary Clinton and many others, would have invaded Iraq in 2003, when she asked him whether “knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?” Those who assume they are competing with Bush for the nomination, should he officially join the race early this summer, gave the answer the former Florida governor would likely have given if he could. Of course, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said they wouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq knowing what we know now.

{mosads}But Bush won’t go there. If he does, history will record him disparaging the presidency of his brother, George W. Bush. 

Critics now claim he is clearly unfit to be commander in chief, and advisers and allies urged him to reword his response and admit he might have “misheard” the question. Then Bush went on Fox News radio — and flubbed it again. Calling into Sean Hannity’s radio show Tuesday, he explained he didn’t hear Kelly’s question correctly, but he still equivocated, hesitated, calling it a “hypothetical” he couldn’t answer. 

It was worse than not being firm; Bush was forgiving, saying, “mistakes were made, as they always are in life.”

He also backed off his first comments on Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but the two questions can’t be compared. That debate came up quickly; on Iraq, Bush has had half a dozen years to prepare. 

Bush’s position on religious freedom, of which he gave an eloquent defense at Liberty University last weekend, happens to be centered enough in a political sweet spot between the defense of the devout and the perception of intolerance. Yet on Common Core and immigration reform — anathema to most of the conservatives who dominate the early GOP primaries, not just by voting but by campaigning aggressively — Bush won’t back down from his support.

Many have questioned, including in this space, whether Jeb Bush has the fire in the belly to compete for and win the presidency. He doesn’t seem to. The necessary fire is often tinged with grease — to beat others, contenders lose themselves, slipping through flip-flops and switching convictions in a flash. 

In the interview Monday, Bush sounded nearly sickened by the concept of contorting himself to please the crowd. “Do you want people to bend with the wind, to mirror people’s sentiment? Whoever is in front of you? ‘Oh yes, I used to be for that, but now, I’m for this,’ ” he asked. “Is that the way we want to elect presidents?”

It could be, up against numerous Republicans who have reversed course themselves, and particularly should he become the nominee and face Hillary Clinton, that his refusal to budge becomes a far more compelling part of his candidacy than it is now. Bush right now is behind or just keeping pace with the rest of the field, and it seems unlikely he will grow in popularity while he remains so happy to be unpopular. Bush isn’t going to get a “joyous” process, as he has said so many times was his threshold requirement for entering the presidential campaign, but he is building the infrastructure for a campaign to go all the way. 

His experiment, to “lose the primary to win the general,” might not succeed. But so far, it appears Bush is at peace with losing as long has he can walk away clean. And that is very appealing.

Stoddard is an associate editor of The Hill.