The Republican Kennedys
Pincher Martin -- Wednesday, June 23, 2010 -- 06:18:51 PMThe Bushes: Two presidencies, two governorships, one vice presidency, one senator's seat. All provided with minimal skill and flexible ideology. The GOP family that just won't go away, no matter how badly they mess things up for both party and country. A thread to discuss all things Bush, including whether Jeb will add to the family's resume.
This thread is tagged:(All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
Don't sell yourself short. You voted for Bush the second time around and made noises about supporting Romney.
I supported Romney. And that 2004 vote for a Bush was my last.
What's shocking is that with all that has happened since then, you still think it's 2004.
In what way will Jeb Bush's presidency be different from his brother's? What policies will be different?
You supported Romney after your religious conversion. Why?
The name got him the job in the first place, but he was generally regarded as a competent governor of one of the Big Four states who managed to steer the state through significantly difficult times in 2001 and 2004, and he's got a couple of policy accomplishments that look good on many conservative checklists. There are equally areas where he's seen as having significantly screwed up, but any decent spinmeister can bury those until momentum builds.
Unlike Charlie Crist's first couple years, Jeb!'s actions frequently had substance to them, for good or ill.
In what way will Jeb Bush's presidency be different from his brother's? What policies will be different?
You and I have no way of knowing at this point, which is why it is borderline childish for you to discount him. You once wrote wisely about the value of the flip-flop. You also backed Romney, who held positions as noxious to your philosophy as those held by Jeb Bush.
One thing I will say for Jeb! is that he won't keep reading My Pet Goat while the world's falling apart around him.
There was no religious conversion. Romney played to my positions, and I supported him for it.
I have a way of knowing it and it's called LISTENING. I listen to what Jeb says and when he says it. He talks, for example, about increasing immigration and applauds Obama's education policies.
Listening. You might want to try it sometime.
It is beyond childish to not be able to learn from experience. At least a child knows after he touches a burning stove not to touch it again. The eight years of George W. Bush didn't teach you a damn thing.
That's not true. Romney made illegal immigration a major part of his campaign. In fact, it was reported that the Bushes were unhappy with Romney because of his position on immigration.
You want to have it both ways. You want to accuse me of ideological rigidity and then you accuse me of supporting candidates who hold positions noxious to my views. Well, which is it?
The truth is, and has always been, that I'm willing to compromise, but only so far, and the Bushes are a bridge too far.
George W. Bush was also considered a very competent governor. Bipartisan, too.
I'm curious as to how Sir Edward thinks Republicans in this era ought to run differently from how George W. Bush ran ten years ago. Despite his Tea Party sympathies, he never gives any indication that the GOP needs to refashion itself at all.
I don't write as much as you do, which may be why you have more questions about my positions. I believe the GOP in this era should run in greater alignment with the Tea Party movement, emphasizing smaller government, local solutions, lower taxes, and deficit reduction.
As for my willing to compromise, you have it too - you just don't show it often, and when you do, you absolve yourself of the stench that an old hack like me must carry. That's fine, but it reminds me of --
Senator Pat Geary: I despise the way you pose yourself. You and your whole fucking family.
Michael Corleone: We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
That's not true.
Romney for cap-and-trade-
Romney on immigration reform
I just told you I was willing to compromise. And I proved it in the last two presidential elections, supporting both George W. Bush in 2004 and Mitt Romney in the 2008 Republican primary, despite neither candidate being close to my ideal.
But if the last decade didn't teach you that there are as many, if not more, dangers in political compromise as there is to ideological purity, what is it going to take for the lesson to sink in?
Not to dig at Romney, but you supported him when he supported some of these things and when he disavowed others.
Give Jeb a chance to show that he can be just as nimble!
Romney's flip-flops were made infamous in 2008. You don't help your brief here by regurgitating them and exaggerating their importance.
If a mainstream candidate is going to play to my positions, when other mainstream candidates are not, then I'm willing to consider giving that candidate my support, as long as he shows some evidence of following through on his new positions.
I said all this in 2008, by the way. It's nothing new. I said at the time I didn't find Romney that likeable, and I agreed that it was obvious he had flip-flopped on several positions since his governorship in Massachusetts.
Contrast that with your need to defend the Bushes every time they are criticized, in the manner of a young man defending his mother's good name.
I'll support Christie.
If Jeb Bush wins, however, I will (unhappily) support him in the general election because the GOP needs as good a showing as it can get this year.
And that makes me a bad guy?