Skip to comments.
Lesson for today: Bush 41 chose friendship over politics in tax fight
washingtonexaminer ^
| 07/26/2019
| Paul Bedard
Posted on 07/30/2019 10:41:27 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
To: rdl6989
[Read my lips...]
The Globalist Goon and his sons certainly embraced idiocy multiple times
"It's a big idea - A New World Order
TM" - GHWB
Just One of Several Mentions of 'New World Order'
'... we have before us, the opportunity to forge, for ourselves and future generations, a
New World Order ...
when we are successful, ***and we will be***, we have
a real chance at this New World Order ...
a credible United Nations ...
to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders'
New World Order - Longer Version
21
posted on
07/30/2019 11:23:27 AM PDT
by
SaveFerris
(Luke 17:28 ... as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold ......)
To: ChicagoConservative27
I can imagine it was not friendship. 41 had been head of CIA. Why to we ascribe Boy Scout morality to him. He was chief of spies. And better at that than at being potus
22
posted on
07/30/2019 11:24:57 AM PDT
by
stanne
To: 3boysdad
If it werent for Perot, Billary would not have won. Didn't matter, Bush lost because of Bush.
23
posted on
07/30/2019 11:27:06 AM PDT
by
dfwgator
(Endut! Hoch Hech!)
To: God cares
[They indeed proved to be poisonous friends if so. One term, and then we had President Clinton.]
Of course they were friends. Here, W is ready for Hillary (that's the message being sent) - the illusion of "choice" when in reality, it's all Uniparty. One thing in common - they HATE President Trump because he wants to help American citizens. They have done everything they can to disrupt him.
"Time talks 2016" (election)
https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/bush-clinton-cover.jpg
24
posted on
07/30/2019 11:27:57 AM PDT
by
SaveFerris
(Luke 17:28 ... as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold ......)
To: 3boysdad
If it werent for Perot, Billary would not have won. OTOH - If Bush had dropped out and supported Perot, Billary would not have won...
And America would have been the better for it!
Just sayin'
Billary - The 2 Headed Co-President
25
posted on
07/30/2019 11:45:07 AM PDT
by
Vlad The Inhaler
(My Corps, Your Corps, Our Corps, Marine Corps!)
To: stanne
[I can imagine it was not friendship. 41 had been head of CIA. Why to we ascribe Boy Scout morality to him. He was chief of spies. And better at that than at being potus]
He was head (and employee) of the CIA for exactly 357 days. The idea that he did much apart from fuss with personnel decisions and policies after the Church Committee reforms is a stretch. In fact, it’s doubtful he did much of anything. Government service as a political appointee is tough sledding even in the military, where hiring and firing decisions aren’t blocked by civil service protections. On the civilian side, it’s basically the swamp that Trump keeps bringing up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Director_of_Central_Intelligence_(1976%E2%80%931977)
26
posted on
07/30/2019 11:52:04 AM PDT
by
Zhang Fei
(My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
To: SaveFerris
Well, GHWB wasn’t the best Republican around, by a long shot. Even if he was Ronald Reagan’s veep. (Donald Trump has done better by choosing Mike Pence.)
But we have long had the problem of the Rockefeller Republican, of which GHWB was one, and his son eventually showed signs of being, too. The Democrats are too wild for the Rockefeller Republican, who wants at least the patina of decency.
To: SaveFerris
And really, if something had to show that Ronald Reagan still had clay feet, it was GHWB. Donald Trump is a better iteration here. Perhaps the good Lord had raised Ronald Reagan up as a trial flag, to see what America would do. Granted, Reagan would have had a hard time “unveeping” GHWB, even if Reagan had grown wiser over the years. He was stuck with that running mate, who became the Presidential candidate apparent. Here’s where we could have used a Donald Trump, or maybe even a Mitt Romney at that point (he wasn’t as bad yet) to step up after Clinton’s first term. But the good Lord knew that if we sowed the wind, we would reap the whirlwind. What we needed to do was to learn that too.
To: Hieronymus
Bush squandered Reagans legacy.. He was a Democrat posing as a Rep.
29
posted on
07/30/2019 12:03:56 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: stanne
One year as CIA Director. Just building a resume.
30
posted on
07/30/2019 12:05:50 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: God cares
to step up after Clintons first term. I believe Dole would've won without Perot in the mix.
31
posted on
07/30/2019 12:07:30 PM PDT
by
bankwalker
(Immigration without assimilation is an invasion.)
To: Buckeye McFrog
32
posted on
07/30/2019 12:21:34 PM PDT
by
dandiegirl
(BOBBY)
To: bankwalker
Dole was fairly insipid, though, or he would have been able to out-Perot Perot (as Donald Trump was eventually to do). There’s something about Trump that says he has a populist side, even reaching to redneck (e.g. that MAGA cap). Donald Trump was “our kind of rich man.” In fact most of his riches simply came from wise management of his inheritance — he couldn’t be accused of “raping resources.”
Why did it take an amateur politician (Trump had never run for any other office) to best the best that the GOP had in its political ranks? Why? Well, look at that Constitution. “We The People.”
To: bankwalker
I believe Dole would've won without Perot in the mix.
I humbly disagree. God Bless him for his wartime service to this country, but by 1996 he was basically a walking cadaver.
34
posted on
07/30/2019 12:33:47 PM PDT
by
Buckeye McFrog
(Patrick Henry would have been an anti-vaxxer.)
To: God cares
Trump ran as a republican ... Perot ran third party.
Trump intended to win ... Perot intended for Clinton to win.
35
posted on
07/30/2019 12:34:59 PM PDT
by
bankwalker
(Immigration without assimilation is an invasion.)
To: kabar
Bush was a liberal Republican who occasionally hid his brand.
There used to be a great many more liberal Republicans—arguably they were the founding wing of the party, and the Tafts, Reagan, and Trump have pushed it to the right.
Unfortunately what passes for right today could have passed for moderate socialist in 1928.
36
posted on
07/30/2019 12:37:44 PM PDT
by
Hieronymus
("I shall drink--to the Pope, if you please,-still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.")
To: Hieronymus
Bush governed like a Democrat. He doubled the annual legal immigration cap to one million. He was a total disaster and set the GOP back for generations to come. His son was almost as bad.
37
posted on
07/30/2019 1:00:08 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: ChicagoConservative27
38
posted on
07/30/2019 1:02:35 PM PDT
by
dfwgator
(Endut! Hoch Hech!)
To: Hieronymus
I might add that Bush 41 admitted in his book that he voted for Hillary. Ungrateful bastard.
39
posted on
07/30/2019 1:03:32 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: kabar
There are many Democratic politicians, now largely dead, who would have governed to the right of Bush—Scoop Jackson to start with.
Remember, Reagan was a Democrat, and the party left him.
40
posted on
07/30/2019 1:12:46 PM PDT
by
Hieronymus
("I shall drink--to the Pope, if you please,-still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson