Jeb Bush says Reagan would have no place in current GOP
 

Neither Jeb Bush, nor his father are anything like Ronald Reagan. Jeb's opinion is irrelevant. I doubt that John Kennedy could find a place in todays hyper-partisan Democrat party. So what!! Of course, I'm no John Kennedy and my opinion is irrelevant. What does Nancy Reagan, someone who actually knew Reagan, say? There was no love lost between Reagan and the Bush family. Jeb's father and Ronald Reagan were poles apart on many issues.

ummm...actually, he doesn't say this anywhere in either article, which may be why no quotes were used regarding "his" supposed statement which was actually....

“Context changes; history changes,” he said. "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," “We’re in a political system in general that is in a very different place right now.” Bush said, adding that he views the hyper-partisan moment as "temporary."

he didn't refer to the GOP as being hyper-partisan but he referred to the current state of politics as "hyper-partisan", which is accurate and he blames Obama for much of that state


Bush called the present partisan climate "disturbing."

"It’s just a different environment left and right," he said of "this dysfunction."

And Bush also blamed President Obama for much of the conflict.

Bush also criticized Obama for placing political gain ahead of negotiation in Washington -- citing the failure of the president’s task force on debt and spending led by former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Erskine Bowles, a former chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton.

‘‘If he was a transcendent figure, which is what he ran as, I think he’s failed,” Bush said of Obama.

The president “had a chance” to address the long-term deficit with the remedy that Simpson and Bowles recommended, a package of taxes and spending cuts, he said, but didn’t “for political reasons.”

“It was purely a political calculation,” he said. “He created Simpson-Bowles and then abandoned it at birth.”



Jeb Bush Sees Romney Needing ?Broader? Immigration Ideas - Bloomberg
...................................

fine bit of journalism there:uhuh:...and zimmyism

"Typical moronic scare tactic based not on the truth or reality, but on what gets people fired up. Almost not worth justifying with a response"

"Why do they have to lie and distort everything?"

"Almost certainly, none. Better to run with it since it fits the mantra of farse and unbalanced news."

"Common sense isn't very common, but it is sure brought up all the time."

"So then the whole premise of the original post is invalid."

"I wasn't even 100% sure it was since the details of it are nonexistent, but I am glad to find out that I was correct."

"This is some funny shizzle."

"This isn't more "my perception must be reality" ?"

Where did you get your info? Did you investigate the details?"

... is it even honest?"

"That and most commentators on there say a bunch of crap that isn't really true, but many in those masses who are listening lack the gray matter to actually analyze multiple sources of information and form valid conclusions":)

Where are the environmentalists in the rep. party? Teddy R. would have been laughed at for expanding the national park system. If Nixon today proposed the clean water act or the EPA, he would have been out early in the primaries. The protection of the ozone, (Reagan), or cap and trade (Bush) were all great Repub. ideas. Now it is all drill baby drill and a strange obsession w/coal.

We're at this site b/c we love the outdoors, yet if someone proposes a law to help protect it, he gets bricks thrown at him.

hyper-partisan Democrat party? When polls ask people that, they always seem to view the Repubs as more partisan.

Quotes are Jeb's, not mine, from your link Scott.

“They got a lot of things done with bipartisan support, but right now it’s just difficult to imagine,” Bush said.

“Context changes; history changes,” he said. “Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, similar to 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,” he said. “We’re in a political system in general that is in a very different place right now.”

I take that statement to say two things, yes it is very partisan right now (I assume he means both sides, which I agree with). I also think he thinks that the current tract of the Republican party is not how he or his dad, or Reagan would have defined it...

"Back to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time – they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan suport," he said. Reagan "would be criticized for doing the things that he did."

Bush cited, in particular, "the budget deal my dad did, with bipartisan support — at least for a while — that created the spending restraint of the ‘90s," a reference to a move widely viewed now as a political disaster for Bush, breaking a pledge against tax increases and infuriating conservatives. It was, Bush said, "helpful in creating a climate of more sustainted economic growth."

his statements are about the current political climate and working within that climate, not about the ability of either to get a nomination...

he said...they would have a hard time IF you define the Republican Party as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground....and he doesn't define it that way....

pretty clear and a far cry from..

Jeb Bush says Reagan would have no place in current GOP


Jeb Bush berates 'hyper-partisan' GOP -


nice try though:uhuh:

[QUOTE=PaulS;943710]Where are the environmentalists in the rep. party? [QUOTE]

Instead we get this... (First NC, now VA)
Lawmakers avoid buzzwords on climate change bills | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

you can disagree with anthropogenic climate change, I don't, but you are entitled to your opinion on future projections and models... but when countless tide-gauges up and down the east coast have directly MEASURED (i.e. not modeled) sea-level rise over the last century, now they have to call it recurrent flooding... because of.... well of course, sea level rise!

give me a #^&#^&#^&#^&ing break....

and then he berated Obama for placing political gain ahead of negotiation in Washington ...

keep trying:uhuh:

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;943719]you have your own scientific community to thank for the disaster that is climate change/global warming/global cooling/ anthrompogenic whatever


anybody see Al Gore lately???:)

[QUOTE=scottw;943717]....and he doesn't define it that way....
[QUOTE]

Because the Republican party of today DOES NOT FIT Bush's definition of the party.

nice try though:uhuh:

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;943722][QUOTE=scottw;943717]....and he doesn't define it that way....
are you drunk?...the only time that he mentioned feeling out of step with the party was on immigration and I think he said "somewhat out of step"...he was effusive in praise of Paul Ryan and others....

there is nothing that he said that justifies your statement:confused:

"Other Republicans, including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, have suggested that this GOP wouldn't nominate Reagan, who raised taxes and made grand bargains with Democrats on immigration and fiscal issues. Bush also repeated criticism of the "tone" of the discussion of immigration issues."

I don't know about these polls, neither of their existence, nor how they are structured and what their biases are. But I don't let polls guide my opinion. How has the Democrat party been less partisan than the Republican?

"Where are the environmentalists in the rep. party? "

They are everywhere. I am one of them. I care deeply about the environment. However, I don't take it to the extreme that I blindly accept whatever Al Gore tells me, especially if he is telling me via text from his private jet.

"Teddy R. would have been laughed at for expanding the national park system. If Nixon today proposed the clean water act or the EPA, he would have been out early in the primaries"

What do you base that on? Can you support those absurd ststements?

Many conservatives happily pay for hunting licenses and fishing licenses. Many conservatives are all for logical protection of our national resources. But the key word is "logical". I don't want liberal fanatics telling me I can't drive an SUV or turn on my air conditioner, because some lunatic claims that my actions threaten a species of algae on a rock somewhere.

Your entire post is an insane rant, a pathetic, desperate attempt to paint my side as a bunch of callous capitalists hell-bent on raping the land. Unfortunately for you, that's nowhere near the truth.

In the 1970's, liberal fanatics got a worldwide ban of spraying DDT, because it was threatening the eagle populations. The theory was that DDT made the eggs so thin that the mother birds crushed them when they sat on them. So the liberals enacted a worldwide ban on spraying DDT.

Here's what liberals missed (they usually miss something key). In Africa, mosquitoes cause malaria. The worldwide ban of DDT caused mosquito populations in Africa to skyrocket, and thousands of Africans died of malaria. Not a great result in my book.

I love eagles, and I went to Alaska once specificaly to photograph eagles. That being said, I would happily break the neck of every eagle on the planet, if that would bring back one African child who died of malaria.

My side has a rational, sypmathetic, empathetic view of the environment. We are all for protecting the environment, but not to the point that it causes genuine human suffering.

You're saying that conservatives resort to anarchy when we don't get our way? That's a good one.

Paul, please tell me what percentage of violent riots you think are led by angry conservatives?

Liberals resort to environmental terrorism, not conservatives.

As usual, you literally could not be more wrong in your statement.

Do the Dem. leaders make idiotic statements like the most imp. thing is to defeat the pres- not the economy, not the war?

And as usual your wrong and come across as an angry, pathetic, partisan person. I don't rant, you do. Look at all your posts. 99% of them are in the political forum and are usually crying about some percieved action by liberals. Post some more b/c I enjoy seeing the anger which seems to drive you. I could care less if you want to Alaska. Tell us more about your military or church service.

Paul, you said that if someone proposed a clean water act, a conservative would throw a brick at them. That's anarchy. Stop obsessing about the hyper-technical details...the point is, your post painted conservatives as some cartoonish, dastardly capitalist dedicated to raping the land. Sorry, no truth, or very little truth at best, to that.

"Do the Dem. leaders make idiotic statements"

Actually, yes. Just this week, Obama said "the private sector is doing fine". Tell that to the millions of people looking for work in the private sector. Last week, Obama said something "idiotic" about Polish death camps...

You don't admit that Joe Biden (the VP certainly counts as a democratic leader) makes idiotic statements?

How many examples do you want of Democratic leaders making idiotic statements? Conservatives believe that everyone, even Catholics, have the right to practice religion. For that, democrat leaders say that conservatives have waged a "war against women"? Most conservatives believe that public unionized benefits need to be curtailed, because states simply cannot pay for them. For that, democrat leaders claim that conservatives "only care about the rich". Those are idiotic, partisan statements. Finally, when Paul Ryan points out that Medicare is going bankrupt, democratic leaders make a commercial of him pushing an old lady off a cliff. That's not idiotic? Is that the democrat's idea of reaching across the aisle to work with conservatives? That's designed to encourage thoughtful debate?

When people like me say "Obama must be defeated", it's synonymous with saying "the economy needs to be fixed". In our opinion, Obama's agenda is causing serious harm to the economy. You. however, cannot accept the fact that we have reasonable justification to say "Obama must be defeated", you assume that statement must be based on racism.

Paul, you said conservatives would throw a brick if someone proposed a clean water act. I asked you to support that, and all you can do is call me a hate-monger. That's precisely what liberals do when they have backed themselves into an intellectual corner from which there is no escape.

No anger or hate in my posts here. I simply asked you to support your deranged claims.

PaulS accuses me of hate, and then he posts this...

"How about what percentage of teabaggers are racist?"

He posts this bile, and still has the chutzpah to accuse me of hate.

How long, O' Lord?

Paul, I'll talk about race all day long. Are there racists in the Tea Party? Yes. Is it widespread? No. Here's proof...the tea party ideals are exactly what poor blacks need to embrace, in order to escape the shackles of poverty. We want as many blacks as possible to be self-supporting and wealthy. If I was racist, I'd be supporting liberal policies at the top of my lungs, policies which have encouraged blacks to become addicted to welfare, and encouraged blacks to have illegitimate kids. That all but guarantees poverty.

You want to see genuine, widespread racism? You won't see it at the Tea Party. Try Rev Wright's church.

So what was "deranged"? The statement that if someone proposed the clean water act today, people would throw bricks at them?

I think an unbiased person would looking at both our post history would say your the one with a lot of anger and hate.

Is that bile also?

Both of you need to take a step back and relax.......before this thread gets shut down.

Paul -

"So what was "deranged"?

In my opinion, it is deranged to suggest that if someone proposed a clean water act, that meaningful numbers of conservatives would be so opposed, that they would react by throwing bricks at whoever (presumably a heroic, selfless liberal) proposed the bill. Conservatives do not have a history of violently rejecting environmental legislation.

Your first post clearly stated that Republicans, as a group, only care about the environment inasmuch as there is a profit to be made. I do not think you can support that statement in any way.

"Sure it (Tea Party Racism)is (widespread). They had local teabag leaders with signs. Then when the heat got to be too much, everyone got the teabaggers to lay off with the racist signs. Is that bile also?"

Of course it's bile, that's exactly what it is. Paul, how do you know that the folks with signs were Teabag (your words, not mine) "leaders"? How do you know they weren't an insignificant minority?

Do you know that liberal groupa have admitted to going to Tea Party rallies with racist signs, hoping to discredit the Tea Party? How do you know the signholders you are referring to, weren't liberal imposters?

Finally, and most obviously, what idea supported by the Tea Party could possibly be construed as racist?

Paul, I concede that there are racists in the Tea Party. How about the New Black Panthers, Al Sharpton, Rev Wright, 100% of whom almost certainly vote for Obama. They are obviously racist. Does that mean I can accuse all Democrats of racism?

The Tea Party believes that it's irresponsible for the federal government to annually spend hundreds of billions more than we collect. If you want to view that as racist, so be it. I'm quite comfortable defending that ideology. Not only is it fiscally responsible, it's clearly not racist.

In my opinion, when liberals find themselves faced with a superior conservative argument (like the controversial conservative suggestion that bankruptcy is bad), liberals are quick to paint that idea as racist.

I can find individual racists in any large group. That doesn't mean that group promotes racism.

No anger or hate here. Just responding to your fanatical caricature of Republicans as a racist, profit-at-all-costs, rape-the-land boogeyman. It's a lot easier to paint me as a boogeyman than it is to debate me on why I believe what I believe, because what I believe is based on a combination of love and common sense.

Paul, you have concluded that there is widespread racism in the Tea Party, because you have seen racist signs in news coverage of Tea Party rallies.

Paul, if you are correct (that the Tea Party embraces racism), can you please tell me why the Tea Party has endorsed so many high-profile minority candidates?

Allen West, Florida congressman
Nikki Haley, SC governor
Bobby Jindal, LA governor
Marco Rubio, FL senator
Tim Scott, SC congressman

That's just off the top of my head.

Why did the Tea Party endorse these people? In the cases of Rubio and West, the Tea Patry absolutely loves these guys, they are heroes to the Tea Party. How can that be, in a racist organization?

I anxiously await your reply.

Jim, I don't have time or frankly want to waste the effort to respond to everything you say but where did I "clearly state that Republicans, as a group, only care about the environment inasmuch as there is a profit to be made"? I made a statement about "drill baby drill". In this thread I've asked you 3 or 4 times to show me where I've said things you've accussed me of saying (b/c you've tried twisting things) yet you haven't responded once. I'll ask once more, where did I accuse all Repub. of being racists or only care about profits? Rather than get your panties in a bunch, read what I wrote or put me on ignore.

"Jim, I don't have time or frankly want to waste the effort to respond to everything you say "

OK. In other words, you find the time to suggest that the Tea Party is racist. But when I offer irrefutable proof to the contrary, suddenly you're too busy. So, you know you are wrong, but rather than admit it, you want to drop it. For the record, it would have taken you less time to type "I'm wrong" than to type "I don't have time to respond".

'In this thread I've asked you 3 or 4 times to show me where I've said things you've accussed me of saying ..."

Paul, are you feeling OK? Here is what you said in this thread, to cast Republicans in the manner in which you want everyone to see them...

(1) "Where are the environmentalists in the rep. party?"...

(2) "Teddy R. would have been laughed at for expanding the national park system"

(3) "If Nixon today proposed the clean water act or the EPA, he would have been out early in the primaries."

(4) "we love the outdoors, yet if someone proposes a law to help protect it, he gets bricks thrown at him"

(5) "How about what percentage of teabaggers are racist?"


I didn't make any of this up Paul. These are your words, not mine. And yet you accuse me of hate, and you accuse the GOP of being partisan. Wow.

Wow, your posts make me shake my head and laugh (although I do have some sympathy for you for having so much hate).

And That's a Wrap Folks...Move along.....Nothing to see here.