Posted on 06/11/2012 9:34:32 AM PDT by US Navy Vet
Jeb Bush says that if Ronald Reagan was alive today he would struggle to win the Republican presidential nomination. I should think so – the great man would be 101 (that gag is copyrighted to Jonah Goldberg).
What Bush meant was that Reagan’s history of compromise with Democrats would make him unacceptable to the GOP base. He told Bloomberg reporters that Reagan and Bush's father, President George HW Bush, "got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support. [Reagan] would be criticized for doing the things that he did.” The remark is electoral gold for Obama as it conforms to the narrative of Republican extremism vs Democratic centrism. It confirms a widely held view that the GOP, thanks to the Tea Party, is more Rightwing than ever before. Ronald Reagan would struggle to get nominated today and George HW Bush wouldn't have a hope in Hell.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
You misread my meaning. Once Bush committed to UN/coalition action he was stuck. He couldn’t turn back or go back on that committment. As I said “HW should have said FUUN,.....”
I have serious doubts that College club/society loyalities/oaths last much beyond college years, except as shared experience.
“. Is that the theory you prefer?”
Not me! HW was too trusting of others, as I said “naivete.”
The RINO extraordinair who let Teri Schievo go to her death should join the democratic party.
Jeb Bush is wrong: Ronald Reagan could have won the 2012 Republican nomination easilyCould have and would have. No contest.
Reagan would still win.
But he would banned here.
>> “I have serious doubts that College club/society loyalities/oaths last much beyond college years, except as shared experience” <<
.
You may wish to believe that, but the visible, and documented evidence says that it is the strongest bond on Earth.
I do not subscribe to the whole bot thing as I think calling someone a bush bot or any other kund of bot dismisses someone with contrary views.
The Bush family sacrificed a lot to run for public office and take on the mantle of Governor, congressman, and president ,
Since you purport to be a vet (according to your moniker) you should be more aware than most what that means. The fact that you consider the Bush family “bad” gives you a rotten stench in my book no matter who you are
IT IS REALLY PATHETIC WHEN PEOPLE SUPPOSEDLY ON THE RIGHT ACT THE WAY YOU DO
THE BUSH FAMILY IS THE ENEMY ? ....SCREW YOU
“Is that the theory you prefer? Not me! HW was too trusting of others, as I said “naivete.”
Forty-niner, you are the one excusing Bush’s mistakes due to his supposed “naivete” and said “HW’s biggest fault was in believing the Donks were patriots”.
So you think all of a sudden this war scenario emerges and Bush gets duped by the Euros and everybody, and they are therefore the ones responsible for the fiasco, and not Bush?
You think the leader of the free world, ex-Director of the CIA, eight years as VP under Reagan, son of a promonent U.S. Senator, WWII veteran, hard-nosed oilman whose real family business is politics can be excused because he is too “trusting of others” NAIVE??
No. Being a true believer in the Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, H.G. Wells, Progressive, United Nations theories of the New World Order only means you are a true believer in those things, same as the rest of them - and if belief in all that is naivete, then the world is run by naive people.
Of course you can make the case that all of the true believers are naive because they believe The New World Order can change man’s fundemental nature, or The New World Order can control mankind’s evil, selfish, warlike impulses, or that man can be made to be somehow different from what man has demonstrated he is throughout history, or the cycle of birth, life, and collapse and death that has happened to every civilization known to history can be averted by the policies of The New World Order.
But that does not make Bush less culpable or better than any other leader who leads his nation into disastrous misfortune by his misjudgements.
Its really pathetic when fools try to run cover for our enemies.
All masonic adepts are our enemies. All takers of the Luciferian blood oaths are our enemies.
I hope that doesn’t include you, but if it does, so be it.
Masonic?
oh Im sorry, I didnt realize you were a nut case
Since Mitt could have outspent and demonized Reagan 24/7, it is reasonable to assume that Reagan would not have prevailed over Romney.
I’m not speaking about substance here, I’m speaking about Romney despising Reagan and going after him. After all, Romney did denounce reaganism and reagan back in his Senate campaign days.
His Insurance Commission appointees socked it to the homeowner and he just kept on smiling and playing the suckers like P.T. Barnum and MYTH ROMNEY.
“But that does not make Bush less culpable or better than any other leader who leads his nation into disastrous misfortune by his misjudgements.”
Bush 41 has admitted many times that he made a mistake and should have gone after SH in Gulf I. In reality he wouldn’t have had the support of the Democrat Congress to do so, and I suspect a major impeachment effort from the Democrats would have ensued if he had tried to “go it alone.” I wouldn’t call Bush 41 a “leader who leads his nation into disastrous misfortune by his misjudgements” by any streach of the imagination.
You’re engaging in hyperbole of the worst sort using that sort of language to describe Bush I. The interveining years when Clinton failed to recognize and take action against Al Quida was a more grevious misjudgement than Bush’s lack of followup to ejecting Iraq from Kuwait against the wishes of an increasingly radical Congress and the nations of the coalition at large who were against any such action against Iraq beyond ejecting Iraq from Kuwait.
Even with the House, and later, 2003, the Senate, in Republican hands, Bush 43 received a whole lot of grief at the hands of the Democrats opposed to our taking ANY actions in the middle east.
Imagine the fiasco if Bush 41 had tried to take those very same steps against SH that 43 took, without the “permission” of the Democrat Congress in 1991. It Bush 43 took over a year to lay out the case against SH in a post 911 atmosphere, and gain grudging approval from Congress. This was time Bush 41 did not have, nor did he have a Congress capable of doing the right thing.
Your dislike for GHWB and GWB has clouded your judgement so much that you cannot see the forest for the trees.
Presidents are not “Kings” working in a position of unchecked power. Both Bush’s were mightily oppossed by the “disloyal opposition” of the emerging radical leff’s charge to gaining the unchecked power of a supermajority Democrat Congress and our first “black” (Communist) President.
We are better served if your venom is reserved for the current President and the remenants of the Democrat Congress mis-serving our nation from the years of 2007 until 2011, and still mis-serving us in the Senate to this very day!
“...
and documented evidence says that it is the strongest bond on Earth.”
lolololol.... Only in the logs/minds of conspiracy wags......Sorry, but that is a laughable statement. LOLOLOLOLOL.
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.