Skip to content

Thank You, Jeb Bush…

12 June 2012 @ 09:31

…for canceling out any possibility that we conservatives will ever seriously consider you for the Presidency.

Stick a fork in The Bush Dynasty — they’re done…

From The New York Times, via the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jim Rutenberg reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to Wombat-Socho's Live At Five]:

Former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida said his father, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan would find themselves out of step with today’s Republican Party because of its strict adherence to ideology and the intensity of modern partisan warfare.

"Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, similar to my dad, they would have had a hard time if you define the Republican Party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement," Mr. Bush said at question-and-answer session with reporters and editors s held Monday morning in Manhattan by Bloomberg View.

"Back to my dad’s time or Ronald Reagan’s time," he said, "they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support that right now would be difficult to imagine happening."

Mr. Bush stood by his assertion that he would accept a hypothetical deal — which all of the major Republican candidates including Mr. Romney rejected when asked about it during a debate on the Fox News Channel last year — that would allow $1 of revenue increases for every $10 in spending cuts. And, when asked to point to a moment of political courage of the sort he said Mr. Obama had not produced, he pointed positively to the budget deal his father struck in 1990, which included tax increases in spite of the elder Bush’s "read my lips, no new taxes" campaign pledge.

The deal angered many Republicans and is viewed as contributing to George Bush’s re-election loss in 1992, but Jeb Bush said "that created the spending restraint of the 1990s; more than anything else that was helpful in creating a climate for sustained economic growth."

"He didn’t win," he added, "but at least he did it."

Mr. Bush said he also hoped his party would improve its performance on immigration.

He said that Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, needed a different tone when it came to reaching out to Hispanic voters and should make immigration more of an economic issue than a legal one.

Yes! I have seen the light! Let’s go back to the failed policies of your Old Man. While we’re at it, let’s break our promises too, betray our word! And let’s forget that illegal immigrants are, well, illegal.

You’re a bloody genius.

Let’s compromise even more with the Left — after all, it’s worked out soooo well in the past. I mean, we’re in such great shape, economically and morally, because we compromised, because we betrayed our beliefs.

By all means, let’s keep letting the Left make suckers out of all of us. Cause, ain’t it more important that we be seen as being liked by all the ‘right’ people than in trying to save America from collapse?

To you, Mr. Bush, and all of those who agree with you, we, the people who are trying to prevent the downfall of The American Republic, say:

You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

If you and your panty-waisted allies don’t leave, we will. And we’ll make the GOP go The Way Of The Whig Party.

Sit on it, Jeb — and STFU.

  1. 12 June 2012 @ 10:41 10:41

    Jeb must have forgotton Pop’s “voodoo economics” comment about Reagan. The new world order “thousand points of light” Bush utopian dislexia never meshed with Reagans belief in the self reliant individual. The Bushs, Kristol, and Roves are not fond of Reagan, Palin, Buchanan, or Paul. And I really, really like that. Jeb can piss off.

  2. 12 June 2012 @ 10:43 10:43

    Jeb Bush is a political opportunist hack, seeking to rewite political history, and the image and reality of President Ronald Reagan, vs the Bush’s, against the constitutional conservative Tea Party folks of today.

    The only reason the Bush’s were ever in the Presidential White House picture, is because of Ronald Reagan and all the Reagan Conservative people, not because the Bush’s were GOP establishment Republicans, but in spite of it.

    Let me tell you why- The “connection” to a real conservative, President Ronald Reagan. 

    If it weren’t for Ronald Reagan choosing GHW Bush as his VP in 1980, the Bush’s would never have been elected President, period. This connection is the only reason they were selected by conservatives over others in the 1988 election, as well as the 2000 election. American conservatives do not love, nor have they ever loved the Bush’s.

    Secondly, the Tea Party uses President Reagan as a template for what we want and need in a conservative leader of America. Reagan was not prefect, but no one is, but that does not mean you should not strive for perfection in applying conservative values and principles, not the abandonment of those values and principles under the guise of collusional appeasement, ie; their so called compromise BS.

    Ronald Reagan today would absolutely agree with every word I have just said, as he practiced it everyday, he didn’t just give lip service like these liberal progressive GOP RINO’s like Jeb Bush.

    In 1976, the Gov Reagan was told in a letter by prominent GOP politicians at the time, to back down from challenging then President Ford. Reagan told them all to go to hell. Reagan stood firm for what he believed in, and mauled President Ford in advocating Conservative values and principles over progressive GOP establishment policies at the RNC Convention in 1976.

    And do you think those very same GOP progressive establishment RINO’s like the Bush’s, would have ever have implemented Reaganomics, that not only save the US Economy and America from the depths of the Carter economic stagflationary malaise disaster, but he saved the Republican Party from it’s own progressive destruction of expanding govt and spending as much as the Democrats. And do you think those same GOP RINO’s would have defeated the USSR. No.. They would have appeased and compromised every piece of American Sovereignty away to the USSR and continued the same old stalemate detente’ strategy of standoff diplomacy.

    So Jeb Bush and the rest of his progressive GOP establishment buddies, can take their phony revisionism and attacks on the Tea Party Reagan Conservatives, and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

  3. Pathfinder's wife permalink
    12 June 2012 @ 11:56 11:56

    In the meantime Tea Party groups are increasingly getting behind Mitt Romney and his team…which includes Mike Leavitt as transition team leader (and possibly a position afterwards) and Orrin Hatch as a special advisor..

    What do you think the outcome of this will be vis a vis the perceptions of the average citizen?
    Seriously, I’m asking and not joking around.

  4. 12 June 2012 @ 15:14 15:14

    You go to war with the army you got. Romney wasn’t, isn’t and won’t be my first choice, but…

    As far as the Tea Parties go, Romney can line line up anyone with a Gadsend flag letterhead he wants. but NOBODY can deliver a Tea Partier vote the Tea Partiers don’t personally believe in. We need to concentrate on creating a House and Senate which will repeal Obamacare and the Bureau of Government movement in DC whether Romney likes it or not. Our work will not be done in November.

    • Pathfinder's wife permalink
      12 June 2012 @ 15:59 15:59

      The problem is (imhao) that yes, the TP has to go to war with what it’s got…but it’s an error to support him too enthusiastically…but unfortunately they will have to drum up some enthusiasm for him in order to push him across the finish line (with the resultant loss of some standing in the process, especially if the sucker stabs them in the back afterwards if he wins — which I don’t trust him not to do).

      I’m kinda glad I don’t live in a battleground state; this whole thing just reeks.

      • Adobe_Walls permalink
        12 June 2012 @ 16:37 16:37

        While I’m convinced it is too late for a “ballot box” solution to our problems, it is our duty to give it one last try. We owe our founders that much. That does not mean however that we must support Romney any more than our conscience will allow, if that level of support falls to the point that one’s conscience precludes voting for Romney so be it.

        While I had actually held the hope of being able to finally vote for rather than against a presidential candidate, “curses foiled again”. It is difficult to imagine how we prevent Obamsky’s reelection without voting for Romney. If one believes that there is little point in choosing Romney over Obamsky, by all means let that belief lead ones actions where it may. It is my personal belief that our least worse choice means voting for Romney on November 6, and then thoroughly scrutinizing his every word and action (or lack of action) starting November 7, and applying hammer and tong where appropriate.

        • Pathfinder's wife permalink
          12 June 2012 @ 18:55 18:55

          Thing of it is; the more I read the more unsettling it gets — there really is no lesser of two evils, and the best anyone can hope for is Congress, the states, and the court reining either of them in (which I have little faith of that happening as it should, but as it would at least offer to put the brakes on either of them…and my conscience wouldn’t feel so filthy doing that).

          I don’t think anyone is going to hold his feet to the fire (unless the combined weight of the agencies I listed above can coalesce to do so) once he gets in. For sure the voters certainly aren’t.
          I hope I’m wrong.

        • Adobe_Walls permalink
          12 June 2012 @ 21:12 21:12

          Pathfinder’s wife:

          I’ll quibble with “there really is no lesser of two evils”, while I’m sure you know I’m no Romney fan at a minimum Romney at least believes in Market Capitalism as he perceives it. While what we do know of Obamsky’s perception capitalism is disturbing enough we do know he is against any form of it that you or I would recognize.

        • Rosalie permalink
          13 June 2012 @ 20:26 20:26

          That’s pretty much how I feel. And since Romney describes himself as being “severely conservative”, he’d better deliver. I’m not holding my breath though.

  5. Adobe_Walls permalink
    12 June 2012 @ 18:18 18:18

    A word on the Mr. Bush who will never be elected President of the United states (almost nuff said there, huh). While his remarks have been twisted by some leftist venues he does touch on the problem in that interview. Unfortunately his view of what the solution is, is in fact the problem. Reagan’s single greatest failing as a politician and as president was the misconception that the Social Democrats are honorable people who can be negotiated and compromised with, in good faith. The Bushs’ failings are that they support many of the Social Democrats policies and even worse their premise that bigger and bigger government is not only desirable but necessary.

    I do not doubt the Bushs’ belief in American exceptionalism or the greatness of this country and it’s people. Given that, their failure to see the threat that ever bigger government poses to us, is politically unforgivable. Jeb Bush asserts that his fathers betrayal of his no new tax pledge was some sort of noble sacrifice leading to budget restraint in the 90s. What tripe and nonsense! GHW Bush was played from every angle. First he was convinced that his principle (one he never really believed in) was incorrect and doing harm. Second he was played for a fool by the Social Democrats in that he trusted them to enact the spending cuts after he sold out his constituents on taxes. Jeb Bush’s assertion that the “budget restraints” achieved by caving to the Social Democrats on taxes, is the worst kind of historical revisionism or in this case “nostalgic recall”. The fondly remembered “budget restraint” of the 90s is entirely due to the Republican gains in the mid-terms of 94, together with pressure from Ross Perot’s presidential campaigns. GHW and GW Bush served their country as would Jeb Bush, as best they could within their limitations. Given the disasters they have or in Jeb’s case would produce that’s not good enough.

    Jeb’s interview does highlight one problem with this years republican field. While his characterization of their unanimous rejection of any deal with the Social Democrats containing tax hikes and spending cuts as mindless dogmatic intransigence is entirely false it is an easy charge to make. This is entirely the fault of the candidates in that not one of them had the situational awareness to contextualize the visual by referencing the habitual perfidy of the Social Democrats and pointing out that compromises such as the theoretical one proposed always produce tax hike but never spending cuts. Will any of them ever learn?

    • Pathfinder's wife permalink
      12 June 2012 @ 19:11 19:11

      Well, outside of the blatherings of the regrettable J. Bush, there is probably a kernel of truth: some of the rhetoric on both sides has gotten quite out of hand. Bitter recriminations, accusations, and vehement disagreeing is all well and good — but when people start stooping to calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them vermin (and hence not worthy of consideration as human beings and all that could entail) we’ve turned a corner that could lead to very ugly things. Things people wouldn’t dream of during saner moments.
      It’s opening a very nasty door that shouldn’t be opened (because rest assured, there are those in power who would encourage it, and they do not have anyone’s best interests at heart but their own) and reflects badly upon all concerned. Plus it isn’t productive; it creates the climate for just the opposite.

      That’s got to stop. History is full of examples of what happens when it doesn’t — no happy endings for anyone.

      • Adobe_Walls permalink
        12 June 2012 @ 20:57 20:57

        “we’ve turned a corner that could lead to very ugly things. Things people wouldn’t dream of during saner moments.”

        Hope springs eternal don’t it.

        • Pathfinder's wife permalink
          12 June 2012 @ 23:16 23:16

          I hope by that you mean that you hope it doesn’t get to that point.

          If you mean that you hope it does get to that point…I have no words…

        • Adobe_Walls permalink
          13 June 2012 @ 01:16 01:16

          That point has already been reached precluding hope that it won’t be reached so the tinder merely awaits the spark. Of course this has happened before and the spark held off long enough for the tinder to be cleared but not this time I fear. The divide is far too deep and wide to be bridged this time. Embrace the suck.

  6. Pathfinder's wife permalink
    13 June 2012 @ 11:06 11:06

    Ok, one thing to think/say — the swhtf, and being pessimistic, but I”m talking about people whose words lead me to highly suspect that

    1) they really wouldn’t have a problem with eradicating the so-called “vermin” (who just happen to be real human beings, and possibly their families) — this is sick and disgusting, it’s evil, and it’s happening on both sides. No way I can support that sort of talk or will stick to a side that allows it (I haven’t voted for a Dem in over a decade thanks to this very same crap)…time to pass those freaks out some brown shirts, stomply boots, and some armbands, because that’s what they are (and they are on the left and the right and of course there are power brokers that would love to use them); oh, and then kick them all mightily in the crotch for being un-American and anti-American… traitorous bastards; and they wrap themselves in the flag and the cross for the most part too — which is even more damned, maybe kick them in the crotch twice.

    2) they consider themselves revolutionary style heroes; to those tub thumpers (who I notice always seem to want other people to step out first and do the fighting and who seem to think civil wars don’t have nasty casualty rates…or that somehow their side, puppies, and little kids will somehow have majickal immunity) I would love to send them on a one way trip to Syria (or Rwanda, or Yugoslavia, or…or…) to show them that maybe they’ve been watching cartoons too much….any veteran would tell them that people (especially little kids, very little kids) die some pretty horrible deaths when those things come about and that yeah, the blood and intestines are freaking real, not computer effects…you don’t wish those things to happen…these folks need to be slapped upside the head and set straight that this is not something one looks forward to (at least most of them haven’t moved to category #1, but they could…dumbasses).

    I’m not feeling very positive myself, but those two groups are sick, blind, immoral, and stupid…and they are wishing this on their own people, which makes it even more evil (and they really are getting some kicks out of this selfish little internet chest thumping game too..Christ!).
    If things get bad a sheepdog is supposed to look out for the sheep — all the sheep — and uphold the rule of law (which defends the sheep)…not run amok thinking they are “righteous”..hint: they aren’t if they run amok.

    I’m sick of hearing people talk like that and I won’t support it… idiotic f’ers.

    • Pathfinder's wife permalink
      13 June 2012 @ 11:30 11:30

      …and no, I don’t see the election of either one of these two jokers alleviating this (more likely it will be excerbated), so I’m out, done, not doing it. Won’t amount to a hill of spit, but at least I can say I didn’t have that on my hands.

    • Adobe_Walls permalink
      13 June 2012 @ 17:59 17:59

      I don’t think “the rule of law” means what we think it means anymore.
      First they came for our big gulps……but not our “Starbucks’ mocha sugarchino’s”,….. in one sense this is merely petty tyranny by petty tyrants in another sense that’s the whole point ain’t it.
      “….. but at least I can say I didn’t have that on my hands.”
      I’m reminded of the guy who kept repeating “but I had the right of way” when T-boned by someone turning left on the green light. Small consolation in my opinion.

      • Pathfinder's wife permalink
        13 June 2012 @ 20:32 20:32

        I define rule of law as what I read in the Bill of Rights…and that’s what I’m sticking to.

        I’m tired of people going apeshit over their 16 oz. drinks like it’s oh so horrible, because I’d rather they sat back and considered the bigger picture. I’m tired of hearing about who didn’t eat a dog or whatever, because it isn’t the bigger picture. It’s just a way to get people riled up and not looking at the important stuff.
        And from what I’ve gathered, the big picture is two big time statists with rather questionable character are going to get turned loose on our country and people are going to go for it, going to swallow the kool aide because “Go team R! Go team D! oooh those other guys are the devil, steer clear of them!”…and not because of anything else (both of whom seem to have some daddy hang ups and issues with authority, plus a heaping dose of narcissism caused by some “faithful” that somehow have them believing they just might be the “chosen one” and a dose of rage issues — heh, scary the similarities huh?)….and nobody is looking at it, even though it’s right in front of them, because we certainly can’t be traitors to the cause after all, oh no.

        No thanks, I’m not playing this game anymore. You want to buy the ticket, fine by me — but don’t expect me to be happy to go along for the ride.

        • Adobe_Walls permalink
          13 June 2012 @ 22:21 22:21

          The ability of the government to determine what or how much one can purchase and consume within one’s own means is the bigger picture. All the little tyrannies solidify and set precedent for the overall tyranny.

  7. Pathfinder's wife permalink
    14 June 2012 @ 10:25 10:25

    Well, right now if our real GDP doesn’t get into the 4% range it won’t matter if you can buy a pony keg sized Mt. Dew, because eventually most people won’t be able to buy one (and have a hard time buying milk, eggs, and bread which is infinitely more concerning than the ability to buy a Big Gulp).
    Although the big sugary drink brouhahah does point to an interesting observation: why would anyone need such a huge quantity of sugary drinks? And many people have to guzzle these on a daily basis, not just one even but multiple — culture counts, and the sugary drink thing really does illustrate a society that has lost a lot of its own self-restraint and even common sense (witness the morbidly obese person bemoaning their weight and weight related health issues, but with one of those pony kegs with a straw constantly attached to their hand…come on people! you want to be free you have to excercise some thinking).

    • Adobe_Walls permalink
      14 June 2012 @ 21:33 21:33

      The fact no one should need much less want to purchase 44 oz sugary drinks is completely beside the point and should remain merely “an interesting observation” and not a driver of public policy. It is not proper for government at any level to determine whether one “should” let alone “may” purchase and consume such.

  8. Pathfinder's wife permalink
    14 June 2012 @ 15:29 15:29

    …and might I add (because why hold back any longer):

    while the right is so worried about super sized slushies and who is or is not cool this is going on:

    He isn’t the only one this has happened to, and while I’m not down with drugs I’m kinda not ok with the idea of authority figures holding people down and shoving tubes up their privates either, especially when the reasons for doing so seem pretty sketchy.

    And the irony is that the same state that seems ok with that, is also ok with this (even though the first relates to a misdemeanor and the latter involves a felony…and isn’t exactly as apple pie as some would make it out to be):

    Conservatives gonna have whole lotsa fun with the GOP (or maybe vice versa).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: