Larry J. Sabato is university professor of politics and director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, which publishes the online, free Crystal Ball politics newsletter every Thursday, and a contributing editor at Politico Magazine. His most recent book is The Kennedy Half-Century: The Presidency, Assassination, and Lasting Legacy of John F. Kennedy.

Like father, like son—or perhaps it’s the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Whatever cliché you prefer, one of the useful things about dynasties is that patterns emerge over time. With the Clintons, for instance, we know to pay attention to every modifying word and each verb tense they use (the meaning of “is” and such). The whole truth usually has to be dragged out of them—or discovered independently.

Similarly, an examination of the Bush family legacy in campaigning makes clear that Jeb Bush’s “Mr. Nice Guy” routine isn’t likely to last all that long. Most presidential candidates have a streak of ruthlessness in them—even the nice guys. Make that especially the nice guys. They’re mild-mannered and courteous in public, so someone else has to do the dirty work of winning for them.


Jeb Bush will prove this again. It’s an easy prediction that he’ll follow his brother and father in bushwhacking any opponent standing between him and the presidency. With the Bushes, do not take too seriously their assertions of personal sweetness.

George H.W. Bush called for “a kinder, gentler nation” while accepting the Republican presidential nomination in August 1988. George W. Bush set the goal of “compassionate conservatism” when his turn came in 2000. And now, Jeb Bush promises to “show [his] heart” during his 2016 campaign —one he says he wants to be full of “hugging and kissing.”

The Bushes have the empathetic pitch down pat, but beware the brass knuckles hiding beneath the velvet glove of their rhetoric. Jeb Bush is likely to have far more money than any other rival, especially because of his Right to Rise super PAC, which has collected $103 million already. This committee is run by the shrewd and talented Mike Murphy, who has declared he will “ weaponize” Bush’s fundraising advantage.

Politics is as tough and nasty a business as you can find, and the Bushes are highly skilled at the dark art of negative campaigning. While they talk a good game about compassion, very little of it is shown to their opponents.

Take the patriarch. In early 1988, Vice President H.W. Bush was reeling after being defeated by both Kansas Sen. Bob Dole and televangelist Pat Robertson in the Iowa Republican caucuses. A loss in New Hampshire probably would have ended Bush’s presidential hopes. To prevent it, Bush decided to unfairly portray Dole as a fellow who would raise taxes—a potent attack in the tax-averse “Live Free or Die” Granite State. The ad that did the trick centered on an oil import tax.

“George Bush is against an oil import tax,” an announcer said in the ad. “Bob Dole straddles but now says he’s for an oil import tax. George Bush says he won’t raise taxes, period. Bob Dole straddled and he just won’t promise not to raise taxes, and you know what that means.”

Dole had not advocated an oil import tax, and he had pledged not to raise personal or business tax rates. But both sides agreed Bush’s TV spot was a turning point. “Stop lying about my record,” Dole growled on New Hampshire’s primary night after losing the state to Bush by 9 percentage points. Dole, who had been leading in New Hampshire, never recovered from the loss.

Bush’s 1988 general election campaign against Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis was even more brutal. While the Massachusetts governor ran a weak, incompetent campaign (as he later fully acknowledged) and deserved much of the blame for his own decisive loss, there is no question that Bush’s hard-hitting TV ads contained serious inaccuracies. For instance, a striking warning sign about radiation featured in a Bush ad, blaming Dukakis for the pollution of Boston Harbor was not actually from Boston Harbor. Bush and his allies also saturated the airwaves with phony, exaggerated numbers about convicts who took advantage of Massachusetts’ weekend furlough policy.

A dozen years later, when it was George W. Bush’s turn to run for president, he didn’t just follow his father’s script, he doubled down on it. The Texas governor won Iowa handily, but he lost New Hampshire by an astonishing 18 percentage points to Sen. John McCain of Arizona. On the ropes, Bush deployed one of the dirtiest political attacks in modern presidential history ahead of the February 2000 South Carolina primary. The character assassination of McCain was so extensive that The New York Times would later describe it as “a smear campaign…[which] had many in South Carolina falsely believing that Mr. McCain’s wife, Cindy, was a drug addict and that the couple’s adopted daughter, Bridget, was the product of an illicit union. Mr. McCain’s patriotism, mental well-being and sexuality were also viciously called into question.” While some of these anti-McCain efforts were led by so-called independent groups, there was evidence of coordination with key Bush backers in the Palmetto State and beyond.

Like his father, George W. Bush played up hot-button issues to take down his opponents. In an appeal to the huge bloc of social conservatives in South Carolina, Gov. Bush claimed in a televised debate that McCain had received the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group. This was false, but it betrayed Bush’s willingness to whip up anti-gay sentiments for political gain. It was a tactic he used again in 2004, when President Bush’s reelection campaign closely allied itself with state referenda to ban same-sex marriage, including in Ohio, the state that more than any other decided the contest.

Considering this history, it ought to be obvious what’s coming down the pike. Marco Rubio may be Jeb’s friend and mentee, but he had the temerity to challenge Bush. The one-term senator will pay for it by being defined in Bush’s spots as a not ready for prime-time Republican Obama. Scott Walker should expect an assault on several grounds: no experience in foreign policy (though Bush himself has only been a state governor) and manager of an economy that doesn’t measure up to Florida’s under Bush. Rand Paul’s face will dissolve into Neville Chamberlain’s. Ted Cruz and Chris Christie have already provided the film footage to be depicted as ranting, unstable men whose fingers should be nowhere near the nuclear button. Mike Huckabee will be a tax-raising populist, with a Dukakis-like tendency to let dangerous criminals out early. John Kasich is going to get pegged as an Obamacare lover. And Donald Trump? Well, the imagination runs wild.

In reality, Bush won’t bother to launch most of these attacks because it will be clear most of his opponents can’t prevail. However, any GOP candidates high in the polls later this year should spend some money to construct a bomb shelter.

Naturally, all the top Republican contenders will air attack ads, many of which will be unsavory. But with by far the largest war chest, Bush will almost certainly sponsor the most. He’ll leave the pitiless parts to his surrogates and super PAC, where official ignorance of all muggings is legally required. And like his father and brother before him, he’ll attempt to eliminate his rivals with a gentlemanly smile and gracious wave.

The Bush family knows how it’s done. When you’re playing the nice guy, you can’t afford to be seen with dirty hands.