Posted on 01/29/2006 12:48:43 PM PST by notes2005
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush says Bill Clinton has become so close to his father that the Democratic former president is like a member of the family. Former President George Bush has worked with Clinton to raise money for victims of the Asian tsunami and the hurricane disaster along the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Asked about his father and Clinton, Bush quipped, "Yes, he and my new brother."
"That's a good relationship. It's a fun relationship to watch," Bush said in an interview with CBS News broadcast on Sunday.
While attending Pope John Paul's funeral, Bush said, "It was fun to see the interplay between dad and Clinton. One of these days, I'll be a member of the ex-president's club. ... I'll be looking for something to do."
He said ex-presidents share rare experiences that others cannot understand. "And so I can understand why ex-presidents are able to put aside old differences," he said.
Bush said he checked in with Clinton occasionally.
"And you know, he says things that makes it obvious -- that makes it obvious to me that we're kind of, you know, on the same wavelength about the job of the presidency. Makes sense, after all, there's this kind of commonality," he said.
Bush jokingly referred to speculation that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former president's wife, will seek the Democratic nomination for the presidency. He had earlier referred to the former first lady as "formidable."
"Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton," he said, referring to how Bill Clinton had followed his father, and Hillary Clinton could follow him.
I don't think that folks would have liked an unfriendly statement from the President. It is his nature to praise and leave the gutter to others.
| Action | User | Date/Time |
|---|---|---|
| Append keyword "barf" |
HuntsvilleTxVeteran |
01/29/2006 6:14:51 PM CST |
| Append keyword "vomit" |
HuntsvilleTxVeteran |
01/29/2006 6:14:51 PM CST |
| Append keyword "gigo" |
HuntsvilleTxVeteran |
01/29/2006 6:14:51 PM CST |
| Append keyword "bushisanidiot" |
Borax Queen |
01/29/2006 5:02:54 PM CST |
| Append keyword "bushesarelosers" |
Borax Queen |
01/29/2006 4:48:06 PM CST |
| Append keyword "x42" |
Ligeia |
01/29/2006 2:51:57 PM CST |
| Append keyword "bush41" |
Ligeia |
01/29/2006 2:51:57 PM CST |
| Append keyword "bushfamily" |
Ligeia |
01/29/2006 2:51:40 PM CST |
LOL.
Hey at least you said "most Conservatives", otherwise I'd have to you to step outside for insulting the Gipper, GOD Bless His Soul.
LOL.
Hey at least you said "most Conservatives", otherwise I'd have to you to step outside for insulting the Gipper, GOD Bless His Soul.
OOPS! Sorry dude, this was meant for Common tator.
Baloney. That is only your opinion and it happens to be factual incorrect. I don't care what you've done in your life, or what you've written. You're deadwrong about Ronald Reagan when it comes to his conservatism prior to 1980. In the following speech by Reagan he clearly lays his vision and ideas for the future of conservatism, and using the Republican Party as the vehicle to victory. Reagan says, conservatism is "what what built this country and kept it great". This speech was given on Febuary.6,1977!
*************************************************************************
I’m happy to be back with you in this annual event after missing last year’s meeting. I had some business in New Hampshire that wouldn’t wait.
Three weeks ago here in our nation’s capital I told a group of conservative scholars that we are currently in the midst of a re-ordering of the political realities that have shaped our time. We know today that the principles and values that lie at the heart of conservatism are shared by the majority.
Despite what some in the press may say, we who are proud to call ourselves “conservative” are not a minority of a minority party; we are part of the great majority of Americans of both major parties and of most of the independents as well.
A Harris poll released September 7, l975 showed 18 percent identifying themselves as liberal and 31 per- cent as conservative, with 41 percent as middle of the road; a few months later, on January 5, 1976, by a 43-19 plurality those polled by Harris said they would “prefer to see the country move in a more conservative direction than a liberal one.”
Last October 24th, the Gallup organization released the result of a poll taken right in the midst of the presidential campaign.
Respondents were asked to state where they would place themselves on a scale ranging from “right-of-center” (which was defined as “conservative”) to left-of-center (which was defined as “liberal”).
Thirty-seven percent viewed themselves as left-of-center or liberal
Twelve percent placed themselves in the middle
Fifty-one percent said they were right-of-center, that is, conservative.
What I find interesting about this particular poll is that it offered those polled a range of choices on a left-right continuum. This seems to me to be a more realistic approach than dividing the world into strict left and rights. Most of us, I guess, like to think of ourselves as avoiding both extremes, and the fact that a majority of Americans chose one or the other position on the right end of the spectrum is really impressive.
Those polls confirm that most Americans are basically conservative in their outlook. But once we have said this, we conservatives have not solved our problems, we have merely stated them clearly. Yes, conservatism can and does mean different things to those who call themselves conservatives.
You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between they call “social” conservatism and “economic” conservatism. The so-called social issues—law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems—are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues—inflation, deficit spending and big government—are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.
Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism—or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.
In fact, the time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called “social” issues and those interested in “economic” issues. In short, isn't it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?
I believe the answer is: Yes, it is possible to create a political entity that will reflect the views of the great, hitherto, conservative majority. We went a long way toward doing it in California. We can do it in America. This is not a dream, a wistful hope. It is and has been a reality. I have seen the conservative future and it works.
Let me say again what I said to our conservative friends from the academic world: What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority.
This will mean compromise. But not a compromise of basic principle. What will emerge will be something new: something open and vital and dynamic, something the great conservative majority will recognize as its own, because at the heart of this undertaking is principled politics.
I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for “ideological purity.” Whatever ideology may mean—and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it—it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. We have to recognize that in this country “ideology” is a scare word. And for good reason. Marxist-Leninism is, to give but one example, an ideology. All the facts of the real world have to be fitted to the Procrustean bed of Marx and Lenin. If the facts don't happen to fit the ideology, the facts are chopped off and discarded.
I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free for slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.
When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.
When a conservative says that totalitarian Communism is an absolute enemy of human freedom he is not theorizing—he is reporting the ugly reality captured so unforgettably in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain.
When a conservative says that busing does not work, he is not appealing to some theory of education—he is merely reporting what he has seen down at the local school.
When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is closest to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire.
Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanatacism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way—this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.
The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations—found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.
One thing that must be made clear in post-Watergate is this: The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: “Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for.” That is not “ideological purity.” It is simply what built this country and kept it great.
Read the entire speech: Reagan's Speech at the 4th Annual CPAC Convention: A New Republican Party
Most doesn't cut it.
"I don't believe most Conservatives could get elected assistant butt wipe at a diarrhea convention."
Typical party-above-principle blather to justify membership in the GOP Big Tent just crammed full of RINOs, liberals and moderates.
But tell me, what are you GOP Big Tenters going to do without the conservative portion of your base? In case you haven't noticed, it's sinking fast. Ask RINO Mehlman how the donations are coming and how many cut up RNC/2006 membership cards have come back to Washington with wings on them. This is what happens with you party-above principle types in charge of anything more complicated than a hamster wheel.
Don't get too comfortable. I doubt that your willingness to compromise principles will stabilize the good ship "Compromise".
Before too long, I imagine being elected assistant butt wipe at a diarrhea convention' will look like a promotion to those of you occupying the GOP Big Tent.
I imagine the conservatives around here are painful for you. At least I hope we are.
But thanks anyway for the sanctimonious lecture.
It's what we call the party-above-principle syndrome, as practiced by the GOP Big Tent.
This is an old story....I'm sorry, it's not from today.
bump with no comment
From the title of the article, I thought one of the Bush girls got married.
You do not contradict one thing I post about Reagan and his political activities from 1964 until 1981. Everything I post is the truth. You say what I am, but you do not contradict what I say Reagan was. That is because you know I can post links to Reagan's 1980 speeches.
You can say who I am but you can not contradict the truth about Ronald Reagan.
Was Reagan really a conservative? The federal budget nearly doubled during the Reagan's 8 years as president. How conservative is that? From the last Carter year to the last Reagan budget the federal deficit nearly doubled and federal spending nearly doubled. Is that conservative?
Reagan did not end government programs. in the 1980 campaign and in the Carter/Reagan debate Reagan only proposed ending fraud and waste in government spending. He did not propose any cuts. Is that conservative? Hmmmm.
What Reagan always agreed to was to limit the rate of increase in federal spending. Reagan called it limiting growth to a reasonable amount... Reagan always mentioned some percent of growth he referred to as reasonable. It was an interesting game designed to fool the foolish. The Democrats in federal departments would request twice what they wanted and Reagan would give them half of their request. "I have cut the growth of government spending to X percent from Y percent!!", Reagan would say.. as the Democratic bureaucrats smiled and remarked how tough.. the Reagan cuts were on the poor and homeless.
The number of Government employees grew substantially under Reagan. He hired them and paid them with our money.. or rather with our national debt.
Some of those who supported Reagan said he was making the deficit so high that when Democrats got into office there would be nothing left for them to spend. Which makes as much sense as curing alcoholism by giving drunks all the booze now so there is nothing left for them to drink later.
Reagan nearly doubled federal spending, nearly doubled federal debt and added lots of government workers... How much more conservative could he have been? Right!!!!
Reagan stood up to communism.. much like Harry Truman did in Korea and LBJ did in Viet Nam.. In foreign policy Reagan may have been a more effective Democrat than either HST or LBJ.
Reagan was right. The Democratic party did change. Reagan said in 1980 that the Democrats had changed and he had not. Reagan campaigned for Truman, FDR, and Hubert H. Humphreys and in the 1980 campaign praised JFK. Teddy Kennedy was steamed when Reagan praised JFK.
Reagan never changed his economic or foreign policy views.They remained the same from the 1930s to the 1990s. Those that read what Reagan said in behalf of Harry Truman or FDR will note he was saying much the same things in 1980 and 1984.
Reagan was by 1962 a Republican. The Republican party certainly adopted Reagan's positions by 1980. That means the Republicans took the old liberal positions. It is interesting to note that today's Democrats have taken the old conservative positions.
Democrats in the 1930s and 40s were for a strong defense,deficit spending, and cutting taxes while the Republicans were isolationists and in favor of less government spending and more taxes to balance the budget.
Republicans in the 1930s thought defense spending was a waste of money. The day before Pearl Harbor, the man they called Mr. Republican, Majority Leader Robert A. Taft called for a huge cut in defense spending. No troops overseas was the Republican policy the day before Pearl Harbor.
Back in the 1930s and 1940s the Democrats called their economic policy priming the pump. That meant Democrats favored cutting taxes and increasing federal spending to prime the economic pump.
JFK revived the pump priming policies in 1961 and Reagan adopted them in 1980. Reagan's economic policy was pure FDR and JFK.
Today the Democrats are echos of the Conservatives of the 1930s. They want national isolation .. the troops brought home, and taxes raised to balance the budget.
The two parties have changed sides. What used to be a Democrat is now a Republican and vice versa. Those ignorant of history fail to understand what has taken place.
As for me I agreed with what FDR stood for in economic policies as well as foreign policy. I agreed with those same policies when Harry Truman was implementing them.
In fact Truman in 1952 offered to help Eisenhower get the Democratic nomination for President. Ike just followed the Democratic policies as a Republican president. He could have been a Democratic presidenty. Ike worked well with Democratic Majority leader Lyndon Baines Johnson. Ike had mostly adopted the Democratic positions on major issues.
I agreed with Reagan when he adopted the same polices once held by the liberal party and I rejected the old Conservative policies adopted in the 1970s by the Democratic party.
I am a great Reagan fan.. Reagan was consistent. His views did not change in his life time. When the Democrats became Republicans and Republicans became Democrats, Reagan became a Republican.. So did I.
It is his nature to praise and leave the gutter to others
Yes, you have caught the essence of this decent American. Sadly though, just look at the carnage on this post on FR. Watch that old Billy Jeff, says I. Time for many of us to have a bit of a laugh right now. I think it was Christopher Hitchens (apologies, if it was not) who held forth. It was when the Mena Airport affair was brought up. The quote, in a very British accent was. "He (Clinton) is a complete nihilist". It had me scrambling to my Websters.
Yep, it's Bill.
I have a brother that's an annoying liberal like Clinton
The rest of the family deals with him and are happy we only see him once a year .. if we are lucky .. once ever 2 years
I agree with your theorizing but I do not have your degree of negative emotion about this. I have faith that Clinton will answer for who he is. So will the rest of us, on the degree to which I refer.
My emotional response to Clinton was peaked and abandoned when I heard all the grim news about what he'd done, White House and lifelong.
I can't see anything wrong, negative coming from acts of fundraising if/when the funds are going to help the world's needy. Perhaps having BushI with him keeps him more in check and, hopefully, any vulnerable person safe. At least it keeps Clinton more observable and occupied in a more observable position (meaning, he's supervised moreso than if he was a free Caruso roaming around in general).
Gag! Don't even joke about something like this, Mr. President!
I can see Barbara Bush calling Clinton a few things .. but son just ain't one of them .. LOL
Whew - just reading your synopsis was a wild ride! I read a bunch of books about Clinton a few years ago, so I've read about some of his sleaze. What a piece of slime.
these are the same people who cheered miers, nuff said
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.