This kind of thing make me nuts. Just nuts. Jeb Bush, whom I like, just reportedly said that said that both Ronald Reagan and his father, George H.W. Bush, would have a hard time getting nominated by the more conservative voters in today’s Republican Party.
Free Republic has the story:
“Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad, they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party, and I don’t, as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground,” Bush said, according to Buzzfeed, which reported Bush’s giving the comments at the headquarters of Bloomberg LP in New York City.
Bush, a much-discussed contender to be Mitt Romney’s running mate, said he sees the ultra-conservative and partisan standards of today’s GOP as “disturbing,” but called “this dysfunction … temporary.”
Isn’t this assertion by Jeb more than a bit ridiculous as this party just nominated Mitt freakin’ Romney to be it’s candidate. And some are going to complain that we’re too right wing? Mitt freakin’ Romney people! We didn’t nominate Santorum! We didn’t nominate Bachmann! We nominated Romney.
I think Jeb’s hanging out too much with the moderates.
June 11, 2012 at 8:13 pm
What the hell is the matter with Mitt freakin' Romney? You would have preferred to lose with Santorum? Santorum would self-destruct, and the media would beat him to a pulp.
June 11, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Jeb Bush may have had a point about Reagan having a difficult time winning the nomination – though I think it would be due more to people like David E viewing his as some kind of unelectable extremist than because of conservative purity tests.
At any rate, yes, it's a bit rich to be moaning about how bitterly extreme the GOP elecotate is considering who the recent nominees have been.
June 11, 2012 at 8:39 pm
When the Eurozone collapses late this summer, on top of the economy being in flaming splinters, ANY semi-sentient Republican would win in a landslide.
Gingrich could commit adultery on Pay-Per-View, or Santorum perform a ritual human sacrifice the Monday before the election and still carry 40 states.
Why people bought into the notion that only Romney was "electable" is beyond my comprehension.
This is why Reagan lost the nomination in 1976, and why it has been a ceaseless parade of GOP bedwetters since then.
June 11, 2012 at 9:53 pm
President Reagan, of happy memory, could indeed work with people of good will with whom he disagreed, but he never compromised with evil.
Jeb is just plain wrong.
— Mack
June 11, 2012 at 10:22 pm
JMGIII: You're living in a fantasy world. The majority of people would vote for Obama, either because they are addle-brained wards of the state, or because they want to identify with Obama's elitism/progressivism. It wouldn't matter if he was caught with a prostitute – he would still be the favorite. Romney is our best shot because he is a very SOLID guy, not an empty suit like Obama. Still, it's going to be uphill for Willard, and very, very close.
June 11, 2012 at 10:31 pm
The basic problem with what Jeb Bush is saying is that Ronald Reagan was completely different from GHW Bush. Jeb Bush would like to think that his father, GHW Bush, can be compared in some small way to Ronald Reagan, but it is quite a stretch. Neither the elder nor the younger President Bush had the stature of President Reagan, nor did they have his command of the English language.
June 11, 2012 at 11:02 pm
We didn't nominate Romney, the vote fraud is rampant, the MSM giving millions in free propaganda to their fav lefties like Rombama. Besides, I thought you LIKED Rombama. Cheer up, Sweatervest man will get the nom in '16 since he backed off for Rombama, just like Rombama backed off for McCain. It's all a scam.
June 12, 2012 at 2:47 am
We didn't nominate Romney, the vote fraud is rampant,
Darn tootin'. Even though Ron Paul couldn't crack 20% in any but a few primaries, he totally would have been the nominee were it not for the conspiracy forged by the Rand Corporation and the Reverse Vampires.
You're living in a fantasy world. The majority of people would vote for Obama, either because they are addle-brained wards of the state, or because they want to identify with Obama's elitism/progressivism.
So what exactly is it about Romney that would change voters' minds?
Romney is our best shot because he is a very SOLID guy,
Oh. I see.
So Romney is our best nominee because he's solid. Unlike say Rick Santorum, who was actually manufactured in a Jell-O lab, and thus not solid.
That's some sparking political analysis there, Dave. You've got a future on K Street.
June 12, 2012 at 4:45 am
"Mitt freakin' Romney people!"
What's the difference? You guys at CMR will still vote for him and encourage others to do the same, thereby just contributing to the never-ending trend of the Republican establishment shoving their awful candidates down our throats because they know that despite all the complaints, they own most people's votes.
June 12, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Reagan compromised with evil as gov. Of Cali.
June 12, 2012 at 3:47 pm
President Reagan, of happy memory, could indeed work with people of good will with whom he disagreed, but he never compromised with evil.
Jeb is just plain wrong.
— Mack
So…the Ayatollah, Saddam Hussein and the Contras were not plain evil? We must have a different definition of evil (mine involves killing innocent women and children).
Now, to the more sane crowd, Jeb DOES have a point. Reagan has become a symbol for whatever people want him to be (notice Mack's comment). He was really a 1960's Democrat before the Democratic party left him, as they say.
June 12, 2012 at 10:21 pm
What the most recent anonymous said.
The Republican party has, in the last four or five years, been admitting more and more of the ideas that Bill Buckley dedicated his career to chasing out of the conservative movement. I refer to anti-Semitism and isolationism (*cough*Ron Paul*cough*), and the heartless, lame-brained Social Darwinism of the likes of Ayn "it is good when the wives and young children of leftist politicians suffocate in trapped trains" Rand.
That, I'm fairly sure—the GOP taking a dive to the loony right the way the Dems previously went for the loony left—is what Jeb was talking about.
June 12, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Count on the resident zionist Neocon, Sophias Favorite, to parrot Bill Kristols glee over purging the last vestiges of small government, noninterventionist conservatism. Enjoy your wars while you can….just be sure not to go fight in them. Pro-life only means the unborn, and certainly not Muslims, right?
June 13, 2012 at 10:01 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
June 13, 2012 at 10:24 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
June 13, 2012 at 11:26 pm
You and the Neocons share a vapid fetishization of the Liberal Republic as an absolute good; they're just capable of grasping, as you are not, that Jews are people and have a right to their sovereignty just as Americans do.
I, on the other hand, deny all ideologies. I am not pro-life; I merely oppose murder. I am not a Neocon; I merely do not deny that our military might may be used for purposes other than pure self-interest.
As for "be sure not to go fight in them", I have a neurological disorder that keeps me from military service. You have one that keeps you from logical thought and basic human empathy.
June 14, 2012 at 2:20 am
SF, I realize that you believe that your nom de plume somehow conveys who you are and apparently now your medical history as well but it does not. You are as anonymous as I am, and because of that how on earth would I have any idea as to your neurological status and whether or not you are deserving of empathy? Your ideology is well known on this site. I seem to have struck a little close to home for you to try to elicit a victim response. Didn't figure on anyone here being aware of the recent gloating by Kristol of the Neocons purging the GOP of Buchananites and Paulites and other supposed "anti-semites" and America Firsters??? Now that Congress has given Israel a balnk check on the US taxpayer you should be in hog heaven (or maybe brisket heaven??). Israelis certainly have a right to their homeland, they do not have a right to force US citizens to pay for it or fight for it, especially after the USS Liberty.
June 29, 2012 at 5:58 pm
I have no problem compromising with Democrats if they are interested in compromising with us. But the Democrat style is to hold the line, and define "bipartisanship" as us doing what they want. So I hope we hold the hard line, and in November when we are in control, we use the same reconciliation process to cram the repeal of Obamacare past the filibuster as the Democrats did passing it.