It appears the Bush boomlet is over before it really even started.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will not run for the open Senate seat of Sen. Mel Martinez, he announced in a statement released moments ago.

"After thoughtful consideration, I have decided not to run for the United States Senate in 2010," said Bush. "While the opportunity to serve my state and country during these turbulent and dynamic times is compelling, now is not the right time to return to elected office."

This news almost undoubtedly makes it easier for the Democrats to win the open seat Senate contest to succeed unpopular one-term Republican Senator Mel Martinez -- though at the cost of depriving the party the opportunity to make 2010 yet another election about the Bushes. At this point, despite the prattling of George Bush the elder, my guess is that talk of a Bush comeback will occur nearly every two years into the future, talk that isn't backed up with any real movement towards a restoration of the clan's electoral success (or even real attempts at such a restoration).

There's more...

Think Progress has the tape of George H.W. Bush making the pitch for another Bush presidency:

Here's the transcript:

CHRIS WALLACE: So in terms -- I understand you're saying it's up to him, but in terms of public service and ability to help the country, you'd like to see him run.

GEORGE .H.W. BUSH: I'd like to see him run. I'd like to see him be president some day.

WALLACE: Really?

BUSH: Or maybe senator. Whatever. Yes, I would. I mean, right now is probably a bad time, because we've had enough Bushes in there. But no, I would. And I think he's as qualified and able as anyone I know on the political scene. Now, you've got to discount that. He's my son. He's my son that I love.

I have written about this before, but it would be a real problem for Republicans to go back to the Bush well -- especially so soon. George W. Bush's approval rating still sits at or below 30 percent, and over the last four years of the current Bush administration, Republicans have lost close to 60 House seats, 13 Senate seats, seven Governorships, a great number of state legislatures. What's more, as Matthew Yglesias notes, George H.W. Bush's 37.45 percent of the popular vote in 1992, which was "slightly less than George McGovern," was the worst showing for a major party candidate in 80 years.

Does that mean that I don't want to see the Republicans go back and nominate Jeb Bush in four or eight years? Of course not, because I think such a move would be great for the Democrats as it would reinforce the notion that the GOP is the party of the past while the Democratic Party of the future. But if they do choose as their standard-bearer another Bush in 2012 or 2016, they can't say I didn't warn them.

There's more...

You have to leave it to Republicans. The Bush era has been a massive disaster for their party. And yet it looks like they might just have another Bush as their most prominent candidate in 2010. Marc Ambinder first broke the story:

Two sources close to Jeb Bush, including one who has spoken to the former Florida governor within the past few hours, say he is seriously considering a run for Senate now that incumbent Republican Mel Martinez has retired.

The folks at The Politico confirm it:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush -- the younger brother of the president -- is weighing a run for the Senate seat currently held by Republican Mel Martinez.

Martinez announced Tuesday that he will not seek reelection in 2010. Asked whether he was interested in running for the seat then, Bush told Politico by e-mail Tuesday night: "I am considering it."

In the past two election cycles, in which George W. Bush loomed large, the Republicans have lost significant number of House seats (closing on 60), Senate seats (at least 13) and Governorships (seven), moving from what appeared to be a national party into a regional one. Yet now they might have a Bush as their most prominent candidate and what could be the most watched election contest in 2010? Republicans may even be able to win the Florida Senate race with Jeb Bush as their nominee, but at what cost? If they're willing to believe that having Bush as their standard bearer in 2010 would be a net positive, I've got a bridge to sell them...

There's more...

A lot has been made of the fact that 2008 will be the first presidential election since 1976 in which someone not named either George Bush or Bill Clinton will appear on the ballot, either as a presidential or vice presidential nominee. Of course 2008 might not be the first election without either a Bush or a Clinton, however. But just how strong is Bush-Clinton fatigue? Perhaps not as strong as we otherwise thought. Chuck Todd et. al. over at MSNBC's First Read have some details from the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

And in this latest poll, a whopping 74% say that at least 24 straight years of Bushes and Clintons in the White House won't be much of a consideration when they vote.

I have tended to believe that voters would be reluctant to elect (and perhaps even nominate) Hillary Clinton in 2008 at least in part because of the fact that she is a legatee candidate, following in the footsteps of her husband (particularly given the failure of the most recent legatee presidency, that of George W. Bush). But also, the argument that a country run by legatees is one not far off from a country run by nobility (or is moving in that direction, in effect if not in law) seemed to hold water to me.

Yet apparently, this argument is not swaying too many voters. Certainly, the fact that perhaps as much of a quarter of the electorate has a sufficient level of Bush-Clinton fatigue to hold it against Hillary Clinton this cycle is meaningful -- perhaps so much so that it could sway the election in one way or another (I can't really say until I see the actual data from the poll, and probably even the internals of the poll, if possible). Nevertheless, for the vast majority of the American public, this simply does not appear to be a salient issue.

There's more...

We already know that a number of candidates seeking the GOP presidential nomination for 2008 are planning on running as Bush Republicans in the hope of courting major party donors and earning the support of the party establishment. Now, it seems, the eventual Republican nominee might go so far to name Jeb Bush as his running mate.

Despite the wishful prodding of admirers, Mr. Bush has adamantly ruled out a presidential campaign of his own next year, saying that he wants only to return to Miami with his wife, Columba, and their cat, Sugar. Yet rumors about his future have burst forth as regularly as exotic species in the Everglades -- among them that he would be the next commissioner of the National Football League, run for Senate or become Senator John McCain's running mate if Mr. McCain won the Republican nomination for president in 2008.

"The presidency is out of the question at this point because of Bush fatigue," said Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford who wrote "The Bushes: A Dynasty" with his wife, Rochelle. "But the vice presidential slot is something that's very much in play. He's a successful governor of an important state, he helps shore up relations with the social conservatives and he has the Bush money machine."

One of Mr. Bush's former chiefs of staff has gone to work for Mr. McCain's exploratory committee, but several other former aides have signed up with Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, another probable Republican contender.

"Jeb is a policy-driven guy," Mr. Schweizer said. "If he can be a vice president that plays some kind of a policy role as Cheney has, as Gore did in the Clinton administration, then Jeb Bush will be interested."

The 2008 general election campaign is already destined to serve as, at least in part, a referendum on George W. Bush's tenure in office. But nothing could do more to make this an election waged on the past rather than the future -- and thus almost undoubtedly help the Democrats win on November 4, 2008 -- than to have a member of the Bush clan on the ticket.

George W. Bush's approval rating currently stands below 35 percent, and there's little indication that this number will increase dramatically or get anywhere near 50 percent by the time voters go to the polls to select the next President. As a result, although naming Jeb Bush to the GOP ticket in 2008 would certainly help a candidate like John McCain or even Rudy Giuliani shore up an at least somewhat apprehensive base, such a move would also strengthen the already-present cleavages within the American electorate in ways deleterious to the Republican Party. To get a rough estimation of what a referendum on President Bush would look like, were the Republican nominee to carry only those states in which George W. Bush's approval rating is 40 percent or higher (according to 50-state polling conducted by SurveyUSA in November), the Democrat would win by a 306 to 232 margin in the electoral college. If we made that 42 percent or higher, the Democrat would win 402 to 136; if we made it 45 percent or higher, the Republican wouldn't even garner 70 electoral votes.

Presidential job approval two years before an election in which the President is not on the ticket is certainly not a good gauge about how a campaign will turn out. For one, it's not clear that approval rating is the best way to estimate an incumbent's reelection chances in the first place. What's more, what happens over the next 22 months will matter. Additionally, whichever candidates the two major parties offer up will have different strengths and weaknesses in various areas of the country and among various segments of the population.

That all said, the more voters that make their decision on November 4, 2008 based on George W. Bush, the better for the Democratic nominee. So if the Republicans do choose to put Jeb Bush on the ticket in 2008, they're going to have an awfully tough time holding onto the White House.

There's more...