The Republican KennedysPincher Martin -- Wednesday, June 23, 2010 -- 06:18:51 PM
The 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!)
You're just babbling. You want to say something positive about Obama and something negative about Bush on their Iran policies, but you don't know how to go about it. So you puff out your chest and try to bluff you way through.
Obama's current tough sanctions on Iran did not come until he was more than two years into his presidency. They were an admission that his previous two years of diplomacy towards Iran had failed. These sanctions will not stop Iran's nuclear program. So the choices are: allow Iran to have nukes or initiate some sort of military action. Thus sanctions are either a prelude to military action or they are worthless posturing.
Obama's current position is that if the sanctions don't work, he will order military action. That's a very Bush-like position (pre-2006) for the president to lay out there. But I think Obama is talking tough to forestall Israeli military action until after the presidential election when he won't need the Jewish vote and the high price of oil isn't so politically dangerous to his campaign.
We may soon find out because it appears the Israelis don't trust Obama and aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Netanyahu gave an extremely powerful speech at AIPAC last night, and while it was superficially polite to the president, he made clear he doesn't trust the man to do what's right for Israel.
There's no contradiction in saying that McCain and Obama can both be wrong. McCain can be a jingoist and Obama a dupe (or worse). But that's not my argument. I'm saying that as far as Middle East policy is concerned, Obama is essentially Bush. He shows the same aggressive idealism towards the region. Bush talked tough about Iran ("axis of evil"), but didn't do much about it because he was bogged down babysitting Iraq.
Yes, Obama has modified some of Bush's policies, but the War on Terror is still being vigorously prosecuted under his regime in the name of the same ideals. In fact, I've been amazed at how bloodthirsty Obama has come across in some his speeches. He very well may have it in him to bomb Iran.
Surprise me? You're the idiot who was overjoyed by the Arab Spring, as if it augured some positive development for the United States. You're the one who wanted us knew-deep in encouraging these uprisings. I now see we are on the same side of the Syria uprising as al Qaeda.
You do a wonderful impersonation of Bush. He couldn't have said it better himself. Do you, too, have us on the fifty-year plan? I would think you'd have to, Our earliest democratic experiments in the Middle East, which began nearly a decade ago, have still not yielded any fruit in calming and stabilizing the region. Weaver's doing much better with his gold investment than you are with this investment in peace and stability.
I want the people in those countries to gain more democratic representation, even if it opposes us, in order to break the logjam in that part of the country. Democracy and having their voices heard has an inherent calming effect, longer term, and will help stabilize the region.
Seriously? You are serious about this claim?
This is like claiming that the world is too interconnected by trade links to ever go to war. That turned out not to be the case in 1914, 1939, and, oh, every other time it has been claimed.
The Arab countries have enormous, bulging population pyramids; they are teeming with young, single men. Adding political sparks to this population of dry timber is not a plan for stabilization.
If I were forced to name a single reason why Republicans were a strong party in 1988 and a weak party in 2012, I would have to answer with the Bush family. They give the worst political advice when out of office and implement the worst policies when in office, and yet the GOP can't seem to shake their hold on the party.
It's just incredible the level of self-delusion some people operate under.
The Bush family really does think it's all about them.
I don't remember seeing any favorables/unfavorables, but Jeb as VP polls middling. He looks good in some polls and not so good in others. In some Florida polls, he helps Romney-- even more so than does Rubio.
Jeb would still be a disastrous VP pick. He would embody Obama's political strategy of a Romney presidency being a return to the Bush years. The polls simply don't reflect the endless fun the Obama campaign will have with Jeb's selection.
Jeb saying "I would consider it" is a nice change from all those prospective VP candidates who said, No fucking way, though.
I love that Portman's primary qualification for VP in their mind is that he's the only Republican in the US more boring/vanilla than Romney. The only man who's sure not to outshine the nominee.
Detractions? More foreign policy experience than Romney. Well, that and increasing the US debt by half a trillion dollars while working for Bush. Kinda undercuts that whole fiscal responsibility thing.
You may be right. A completely fresh start might be needed. I've certainly felt that a clean break from anything that remotely smells of Bush would be helpful to the party.
But removing from consideration every person who ever served Bush in any capacity during his eight years in office removes a lot of people from consideration, and I don't think the attacks on Portman will be nearly as potent as they would be if the name "Bush" was on the ticket.
A lot depends on Portman. Will he be effective in defending himself? My flirtation with Tim Pawlenty's presidential candidacy shows I can't tell that by looking at a resume. I need to see these guys in action before I know for sure, and I haven't seen Portman in action. His one year as Bush's Budget Director is vulnerable to attacks, but he did only spend one year in that office. (I don't think his one year as Trade Representative matters.) If he can't defend one bad year on his record, he doesn't belong on the ticket.
Hopefully, the Romney people looking at VPs are able to better gauge that than I am. But on a visceral level, Portman's connection to George W. Bush isn't nearly as deep as Jeb's. Portman has to defend one questionable year. Jeb has to defend the family name and both the presidencies associated with it.
I get the sense that a lot of people would like to be on the ticket.
Does Jindal have any negatives, apart from youth?