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!)
Obama's dodging responsibility is childish, but pretending that it's "kind of like a kid coming to school saying, ‘The dog ate my homework,’" shows to what degree Jeb is trying to build a narrative where he can help his brother dodge responsibility.
After all, the dog didn't really eat the child's homework, but George W. Bush did really leave the nation with huge problems.
One of the oddest things about that NY Times' article is to what degree it reads like an endorsement for Jeb:
Every item I have highlighted in red font is grossly distorted.
Jeb Bush may not be in the public view as much as, say, Sarah Palin, but I have heard more about Jeb in the last few months than I have of Mitt Romney. Jeb certainly isn't shy about giving interviews or political advice.
And given his name, just how much in the public view does Jeb have to be to remain political viable? He is the son and brother of two presidents, and he appears to be trying to leverage that name for political purposes by campaigning for the revival of his brother's reputation.
And how can any reporter write with a straight face that Jeb is some unique combination of outsider and establishment candidate? I mean, Jeb Bush is a favorite of the anti-establishment crowd? That's news to me.
And he has an "independent streak" because he opposed drilling in shallow waters and favors increasing legal immigration? Good God.
I presume a rehash of the merits and failures of the Bush administration is not the subject of this new thread.
I would like to read your brief against Jeb Bush, be it your well-known aversion to political dynasties or that and something else.
He wants to greatly increase immigration.
He wants to greatly increase federal spending on, and control of, education.
He supports affirmative action.
He has no new ideas on the economy that his brother didn't already implement, much to the detriment of our economy.
In short, a large reason to dislike Jeb is because he shows no evidence he would be any different from his brother. And we saw how that turned out, didn't we?
It certainly can be if a poster wants to discuss it.
the dog didn't really eat the child's homework, but George W. Bush did really leave the nation with huge problems.
Even so, Obama should have banned anyone working for him from blaming anything on the previous administration about 8-10 months ago. Comes a point you suck it up and work the problem.
your brief against Jeb Bush
IMO the question isn't whether anything's wrong with Jeb Bush so much as whether anyone would even think twice about him without the last name. I don't think anyone would, which puts him in the same middling category as the rest of the clan.
I don't support anyone yet (save for Chris Christie). And you may find yourself supportive of a Jeb Bush presidency, given the alternative. Indeed, he may even repent and clean up for you ala' Mitt Romney.
FWIW I thought George HW Bush was a decent president that mainly lost due to an ill-timed recession and his constituency losing its mind on him breaking the "no new taxes" pledge. And he seemingly got no credit for the success of the Gulf War.
The public is unable to grasp that no president can improve the economy or prevent recessions by force of will. Voting out one because the economy took a bad turn is just pointless, no matter how good it feels.
"The public is unable to grasp that no president can improve the economy or prevent recessions by force of will."
I can't decide who the bigger moron is, you or Martin.
No, I won't. You haven't understood a single thing I've told you over the last couple of years if you believe otherwise.
The first Bush was one of the best presidents on diplomacy and foreign policy -- in my opinion, better than Nixon -- but he was a cretin on everything else.
How about by good and bad policies?
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.
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.