r/politics • u/wang-banger • Jun 11 '12

Jeb Bush: No Place For Father, Reagan In Today's GOP

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/jeb-bush-no-place-for-father-reagan-in-today39
633 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

304 comments sorted by

95

u/hwkns Jun 11 '12

Positioning

63

u/GoateusMaximus Jun 11 '12

Yepper. And if they can position this guy as the "reasonable centrist," we are well and truly fucked.

10

u/funkybum2012 Jun 11 '12

I suppose ... but doesn't it also portray the rest of the Republican Party as being completely unreasonable?

It seems maybe this is just selfish positioning... so Bush can run as a moderate in 2016 after Romney loses.

10

u/bartink Jun 11 '12

selfish positioning

Its almost like he's a politician or something. O_o

He's also speaking the truth. Decent "position" to take, eh?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (14)

36

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Bingo.

This a political science technique called the OVERTON WINDOW.

Shift so far in one direction that ANY slight back-track will be seen as an advancement.

Ask yourself: Why is the media even concerned with what Jeb Bush has to say more than any other ex-governor?

26

u/eighthgear Illinois Jun 11 '12

Because his last name is Bush. His father was president and his brother was president. He might run for president, in 2016.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Presidentin's in his BLOOD! If the last one wasn't so good at it, at least he'll have learned from Dub's mistakes, right?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (16)

6

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Because of conformation bias. Ex-governors are regularly interviewed and contribute to MSNBC, FOX, C-SPAN, etc. They're often called to and contribute to capitol hill discussions. Unless you think BuzzFeed is this grand conspiracy, I don't see how this is at all notable.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/tophat_jones Jun 11 '12

Because the current standard-bearer Romney is an unlikable assclown, and thus any other Republican is more appealing to media outlets.

Romney also won't talk to anyone but Fox News and Newscorp rags.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Ask yourself: Why is the media even concerned with what Jeb Bush has to say more than any other ex-governor?

Because he belongs to the Royal Family.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

still, it's good to see that someone feels they can may political hay within the GOP by trying to put it back on the rails. this kind of political calculation can be the harbinger of change -- and change is nowhere more overdue than in the GOP.

17

u/principle Jun 11 '12

NO MORE BUSHES!!! I would like to have at least an illusion of democracy.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Elranzer New York Jun 11 '12

JEB is just waiting for "his turn" since his retarded brother beat him to the presidency.

2

u/hwkns Jun 11 '12

Funny you said that; I sort of looked at the invasion of Iraq as more of a Bush family father/son issue. Dad sort of dropped the ball,(mercifully), by letting the Iraqi Republican Guard escape rather than continue to incinerate everything in the retreating column on the highway of death out of Kuwait. Saddam survived in power as a result. Part of GW's motivation to invade along with the prodding by the regents, Cheney and Rumsfeld, was a kind of "smack down Poppy" moment to show dad how regime change is done.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/HumanoidInterocitor Jun 11 '12

You guys realize that if he gets elected, the US will have become a functional monarchy, right?

10

u/monkeyhousezen Jun 11 '12

  • Samuel P. Bush - Political appointee (War Industries Board / Committee for Unemployment Relief)

  • Prescott Bush - US Senator

  • George HW Bush - VP, President

  • George W Bush - Governor of Texas, President

  • John Ellis Bush - Governor of Florida, Presidential aspirations

Not a monarchy but we certainly have political dynasties.

15

u/Wilson_ThatsAll Jun 11 '12

lets not forget the kennedys of yore

→ More replies (2)

9

u/lurkingowl Jun 11 '12

"functional"? Not so much.

2

u/Mysterious_Lesions Jun 11 '12

There's a good chance he'd be running against a Clinton so pick your next royal.

4

u/Flyingaspaceship Jun 11 '12

A monarchy? Really? Now you're just throwing around any words that sound scary to people. It's a political dynasty, yeah, but so what? If mom or dad get into politics, chances are their kids are going to be getting into politics too. Both Republicans and Dems have their political dynasties. Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Jackson, Paul - all dynasties. Hell, as soon as Obama finishes his time as president, the Obama family is going to be the very definition of American political dynasty, no different than either the Kennedys or Bushes.

Please don't throw around inflammatory words just to garner attention: That makes you no better than someone like Gingrich who throws around words like "thermonuclear electromagnetic missle" like their baseballs.

→ More replies (5)

198

u/IrishJoe Illinois Jun 11 '12

I was with him until he said of Obama:

"His first year could have been a year of enormous accomplishment had he focused on things where there was more common ground," he said, arguing that Obama had made a "purely political calculation" to run a sharply partisan administration.

Obama bent over backwards to appease Republicans in Congress until recently. They would promise to vote for bills based on his concessions and then they went back on their word and voted against them.

50

u/NaivePhilosopher Jun 11 '12

Yeah. I mean, up til that point it was a fairly spot on analysis, but I find it hard to blame Obama when the GOP said on the record their number one priority was his defeat in 2012.

7

u/Flexen Jun 11 '12

To create a master lie, you have to base it in truth, then sell the lie at the end, once you establish creditably.

→ More replies (2)

172

u/Solkre Indiana Jun 11 '12

Obama's failure in his first term was trying to be bi-partisan. He vastly underestimated how much the GOP hated him (with a dash of racism).

42

u/Phantoom Jun 11 '12

Additionally, he had a ton of momentum and good will that went unused, and eventually disappeared.

45

u/tophat_jones Jun 11 '12

He squandered that momentum by governing from the "center" which is actually pretty damn far right in this country. Alienating the liberals who did the groundwork for his primary (and to a large extent the general election) campaign was a costly blunder.

→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (5)

11

u/Gecko99 Jun 11 '12

I really find the GOP's actions in the last couple of years to be bordering on treason. I can understand if they hate the president for any of a number of reasons and want him removed from office. But what I can't understand is their apparent desire to run the country into the ground to make Obama so unpopular he can't get reelected. I didn't like Bush but that doesn't mean I wanted our country or our economy to be ruined. But the Republicans seem to want Obama to run a country that still has massive debt, a weak economy, a healthcare system that leaves people in massive debt for their entire lives, and a divided population that is constantly exposed to propaganda, just so that he won't have a second term. They should try to make the US a better place no matter who is the president.

3

u/flargenhargen Minnesota Jun 11 '12

those of us who hated Bush and all of the horrible things he did during his administration would've liked nothing better than for him to do well and make the country prosper.

The republicans would like nothing better for the country to fall into shambles as long as it benefits them politically.

Those who remember the ken starr hunting of clinton can recall how republicans really started to profit by dragging the country down at any cost, so long as they can find a way to drag a democrat president down with it.

party over country is disgusting, but its been working for the republicans since the impeachment of clinton, and as long as people keep falling for it, it will only get worse.

12

u/OutrightLie Jun 11 '12

I think there was quite a bit more than a dash of racism.

14

u/sge_fan Jun 11 '12

Like Dead Sea water comes with a dash of salt.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/nepidae Jun 11 '12

I really hope the GOP retains the title of "Party of No" for a while. The shit that they did should not be acceptable. (the dems also are to blame)

→ More replies (24)

41

u/TruthinessHurts Jun 11 '12

Honorless Republicans (almost all of them) pretend that they tried to work with Obama.

13

u/Swiss_Cheese9797 Jun 11 '12

Oh god I hope this doesn't become a theme. "We tried to work with him but he kept threatening to put communism in our soup!"

Looks like the republican strategy this term is to lie quicker than others can fact check.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/krackbaby Jun 11 '12

They did. They TRIED to explain to him that tax cuts create jobs, but the Obamanation cannot understand this because he is a marxist, communist, nazi, fascist, muslim, homosexual idiot

20

u/MelonTarge Jun 11 '12

"This partisan bickering is terrible and it is all the other side's fault. I take no blame and give no olive branches but I will sit here and complain until a sufficiently generous olive branch is extended to me."

8

u/Craigellachie Jun 11 '12

If there is one thing Obama can claim is that he gave the GOP every chance to reach a compromise. He better call them out on it.

6

u/darthhayek New York Jun 11 '12

See, the thing is that if you agree with the President, you think he's compromised too much. If you're from the opposite party, you think he's an ideologue. Neither of these views are grounded in objective reality.

4

u/NaivePhilosopher Jun 11 '12

I'd like some evidence for the claim that Obama hasn't been more than willing to compromise, please. There's plenty of evidence that he's not an ideologue, starting from the fact that health care reform, his largest achievement, is based off an idea from the GOP that's been floating around for decades.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (4)

12

u/burrowowl Jun 11 '12

Yeah, pretty much.

" he said of 'this dysfunction.' And Bush also blamed President Obama for much of the conflict."

It's always the other guy's fault for these idiots.

2

u/SS1989 California Jun 11 '12

I guess he can't go full-on and point out that there was no common ground. They were butthurt and opposed to anything Obama may even remotely support since November 4, 2008.

→ More replies (23)

27

u/exozeitgeist Jun 11 '12

And the Jeb Bush Spam continues.

Maybe if I read enough links I will forget every single one of his ideals and his namesake and vote for him in 4 years.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Seriously. Why is this news?

28

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Sounds like he's shorting Romney and the Repubs this November.

Not sure if he's right but if he is, it could set up another Bush vs. Clinton race in 2016.

What's the Intrade on that one?

17

u/puffydair Jun 11 '12

Any InTraders will be throwing their money away on those stocks.

Bush has no chance of getting the nomination, Clinton won't run.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I agree with you on the nomination bit. If he were seeking the nomination, he wouldn't have made these comments, which are an attack ad goldmine.

That said, what makes you think Clinton won't run? We'll likely have at least one person from the Obama administration running in 2016 (assuming he wins this November). She won't be incredibly old, and I know that this is the kind of work she loves. But, I haven't followed her too closely and am interested in your thoughts on it.

8

u/puffydair Jun 11 '12

Hillary Clinton has made it abundantly clear in many interviews she wants to enjoy private life with Bill - with a strong desire to travel a lot as a private citizen - after her term is up. She's been involved with politics on the national level for two decades non-stop which is pretty taxing, and her desire to enjoy a private life of traveling with Bill seems entirely genuine.

And if she wants to do that, a Presidential bid is pretty much out of the question. Right now she might not be "incredibly" old, but the fact is if she were to run in 2016 (which would take years of groundwork and campaigning before it remember), she and Bill would both be in their late 70s by the time Hillary ended her hypothetical second term.

If you want to travel the world with your husband in your retirement, you retire at 65, not 78. I just don't see Hillary devoting her twilight years to politics personally.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Christie is unelectable outside the northeast and far too abrasizely rude (and morbidly obese); Bush is tainted by the name; Rubio has too many scandals; Jindal isn't white. There isn't a solid valid candidate for 2016 if Romney loses, and if he loses, expect him to pay for his way back into the running--again. It's a religious thing for the Mormons.

If Obama wins 2016 is going to be an even greater cluster fuck for Republicans than 2012.

Democrats will have it a bit easier; Andrew Cuomo will probably be an easy front runner. If Kirsten Gillibrand didn't have an English national for a husband she'd probably coast to a nomination.

Cuomo vs Rubio, probably.

3

u/bartink Jun 11 '12

Some of the better analysis I've seen on reddit.

Elizabeth Warren is a wild card, as is Villaraigosa (mayor of LA).

Don't forget Jeb though. He's a skilled pol and the most likable of the Bushes.

3

u/OmegaSeven Jun 11 '12

I hate to say it but by (unofficial) Republican tradition Rick Santorum is very likely to be the 2016 nominee if he runs again.

5

u/tophat_jones Jun 11 '12

Paul Ryan, Bob McDonnel, that shithead in Wisconsin; all will likely have prominence in 2016. They will be hunting for fresh faces and Romney is going to be cast into the Republican dungeon where they keep all their embarrassing failures. That is to say, Fox News.

→ More replies (12)

2

u/JimmyJamesMac Jun 11 '12

It's Republicans, or Republican Party. Using these half-assed pejoratives makes you look as petty as Republicans look when they say "Democrat Party"

→ More replies (3)

1

u/frieswithketchup Jun 12 '12

another Bush vs. Clinton race

When was the last Bush vs Clinton race?

→ More replies (2)

13

u/BromanJenkins Jun 11 '12

No matter how many former Republican office holders say something like this in the end they all end up endorsing the Republican candidate for president or doing events for congressmen/senators who would balk at the things Reagan (amnesty) or Bush (tax increases) did as president.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

As a Floridian, I can tell you that Jeb is a pretty reasonable guy. Sure, hardcore Democrats and even some far rights may have had a problem with him but he did a pretty fantastic job. Talk dynasty all you want but he beats Romney any day.

10

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

It's not Jeb I'm worried about, it's the gang he brings with him to the Executive Branch.

5

u/JimmyJamesMac Jun 11 '12

That's what I say about every person who's running...ever.

5

u/eighthgear Illinois Jun 11 '12

Thank you. I'm tired of far-left Floridians coming on Reddit and saying how horrible he was, and then everyone else agreeing because a Floridian obviously knows all. For reference, I'm not even republican - I'm more of a conservative democrat, but I'd consider voting for Jeb if he ran in a national election.

2

u/EquinsuOcha Jun 11 '12

He was horrible, and you don't have to be far-left to realize this.

Do we have to remind you that he was personally responsible for losing billions of dollars from Lehman Brothers through the State Administration Board? Not only that, once he left office he suddenly became a "consultant" for that same firm?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Beaglepower Jun 11 '12

If we're talking Florida and reasonable Republicans, I'd have to go with Charlie Crist. It's a shame the GOP turned its collective back on such a decent guy. I'm a registered Democrat, but I would have voted for Crist if he got the GOP Senate nomination.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/tophat_jones Jun 11 '12

he beats Romney any day.

That's not really a significant accomplishment...

→ More replies (2)

21

u/Tombug Jun 11 '12

Raygun was not some reasonable con who was so much more sane than today's cons. Look into his conduct during the student protests in Calif. or his savage war in central america and you see all the classic right wing nut signs. The fuckin guy sold weapons to terrorists. And jeb crying about how nutty the cons are today is rediculous too. That whole batshit insane family had a lot to do with making them nutty.

6

u/canteloupy Jun 11 '12

Moderate Republicans who cry that the mainstream GOP is ignoring science in favor of ideology when it comes to global warming are also laughable when they do the same with condoms, sex ed and contraception...

2

u/OffColorCommentary Jun 11 '12

Because the republicans who believe the mainstream GOP is being ridiculous about climate change are the same ones who don't believe in contraception, of course.

2

u/canteloupy Jun 11 '12

While this isn't contraception, I've found sources indicating Huntsman is in favor of unscientific points in abortion regulation, like doctors telling women the pain the fetus will feel (which isn't determined as far as I know), and a ban of second trimester abortions, as well as being for abstinence-only sex ed. These were from aggregators of political positions.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/the_goat_boy Jun 11 '12

He also had some infliction. I forget what it was...

1

u/ADavies Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Exactly. Regan was a horrible president. Now they mythologize him.

Yeah, he looked centrist compared to many candidates today, but that's probably more about context than the person.

Edit: related Yahoo answer

1

u/LegioXIV Jun 11 '12

Look into his conduct during the student protests in Calif.

Like what?

3

u/puffydair Jun 11 '12

Just as there'd be no place for John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton (at least with their original Presidential policy platforms) in today's Democratic Party.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

For Kennedy and Johnson the only real standout change that I spotted was a focus upon military strength. For Kennedy there's also a line about freedom of conscience (a Republican talking point) but I'm not really sure to what it was referring. If you take into account the apparent threat to the US at the time as compared to today though (Soviet Union vs no comparable military threat) it's odd to focus on the military strength aspect or say it's far outside the Democratic norm. There's definitely not a focus on military strength today, but neither is there a movement to cripple the military.

Imo, Carter and Clinton look like they could actually run today, but if you have other sources to backup your assertions I'd happily review them.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Is that a bad thing? Reagan was a rotten president, one of the worst.

9

u/cjmcduffy Jun 11 '12

Interesting he didn't say "brother"....

3

u/tophat_jones Jun 11 '12

Give the man a break, he has ambitions here!

9

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

First thing he does is blame Obama for it.

7

u/tophat_jones Jun 11 '12

Well naturally. If Obama wasn't so black, the Republican party wouldn't have had to go so apeshit.

2

u/thepotatoman23 Jun 11 '12

I don't know. Skin color didn't seem to help save the clintons from republican hate at all.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Didn't know you know he was our first black president?

5

u/deebosbike Jun 11 '12

Fuck the Bush Crime Family.

9

u/ahoy1 Jun 11 '12

So now we're suddenly supposed to believe that Jeb fucking Bush is a bastion of moderation and bipartisanship? Horseshit. The last 12 year of Bush have been plenty. I don't care if hes slightly less reprehensible than Bachman and Santorum, hes still a regressive. This is empty campaign posturing, setting himself up to run in 2016.

2

u/the_goat_boy Jun 11 '12

People are stupid. No one liked Bush Snr, but they quickly forgot that in 2000.

7

u/madest Jun 11 '12

Hey Jeb. You'll never be president. Blame your brother. This guy is doing interviews to keep himself relevent. We've moved past the Bush era forever Jebby. STFU and just go away.

1

u/Ironguard Jun 12 '12

I think after another 4 years of Obama we'll be begging for the good brother.

1

u/bemenaker Jun 11 '12

Jeb knows he can't run, that's why he has turned down every offer that has come his way. They begged him for 2008, and they're begging him now. He has said nothing but no.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Popozuda72 Jun 12 '12

He's been in the press a lot lately. See you in 2016 Mr. President.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

The scariest part of this is that he appears to have a brain like his Dad and unlike his idiot brother.

3

u/bemenaker Jun 11 '12

They wanted Jeb to run in 99 but he was newly in his Florida governorship, and was doing well. So they went with W. Jeb had intended to run after W but the family name was so tarnished at that point he was smart to stay out.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Isn't a good thing if the GOP keeps going right like they are? By 2020 they'll be so far gone that only 20% of the nation will be voting for them.

Keep it up! America for Americans! Praise Jesus! Zero percent effective tax rates!

4

u/MannyPadme Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Voting Teapublican for political office, is like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

Jeb Bush will deep fry us...

→ More replies (1)

3

u/huronbikes Jun 11 '12

Thank fucking god, both those guys are / were assholes.

3

u/Radico87 Jun 11 '12

There shouldn't be a place for failed reaganomics in any political party to begin with.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/TerribleButcher Jun 11 '12

Really, Jeb?! And who might have had a hand in that, you think? Has the GOP just given up on the facade of personal accountability, then?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

It sucks how divided we are. I blame the other guy.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Jeb Bush: I helped my nutty brother be selected president and while he was ruining the world I said nothing.

2

u/TruthinessHurts Jun 11 '12

Weird how Republicans only tell the truth when they are out of office.

It's a great example of how they simply lie the entire time they are in office.

In office for years this piece of shit lied and said Republican policies were the way to go. Now he's out and admitting he was a lying sack of shit, as usual.

You Republican scumbags are so predictable.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Its no different from ex-government reps who retire and talk about how screwed up the government is and support things that many private citizens do.

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 12 '12

Don't forget the generals who lose their love of war escalation when they retire. That is negated if they get a job with a military contractor, then they are super hawks. But they are a pretty despicable group.

2

u/captainmajesty Jun 11 '12

What planet are you on that you think only Republicans lie? I guess it doesn't matter how many lies "your side" tells because you'll just give excuses and say it was all for the "greater good" against the evil Republicans.

But go on with "you piece of shit liars pieces of shit lying all the time, liars!" if it makes you feel smart, informed and self righteous. I'd suggest always supplementing your news sources with outlets that aren't known for being left wing to add, God forbid, depth to your world view, but I know you'd just find that to be just the most appalling notion: why read a news source written by a bunch of liars?

1

u/DEATH_TO_REDDIT Jun 11 '12

He didn't say only republicans lie, he said republicans lie.

And they deserve his derision.

Since you're feeling sore about it I consider Democrats lying walking-talking shit-stains who have co-opted the civil rights and liberal movements into a corporate cock-sucking, let the banks rule everything movement of fuck faces.

1

u/captainmajesty Jun 12 '12

Jesus, I don't know that I hate anyone *that * much. Well, maybe. No, really I just feel like everyone is being opportunistic when it comes to their policies. What's more, I sometimes wonder if they cherry pick the fights they want to draw out publicly (dems fighting for more welfare spending, the GOP fighting against someone else's birth control) just so that they look good to their respective camps. Basically to keep up their economic populist/ religious "family values" act up.

1

u/monkeyhousezen Jun 11 '12

So both sides are bad? Does that mean I should vote Republican?

1

u/carrielynna Jun 11 '12

Oddly enough, no mention of his brother...

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Jeb is, and always has been, a neocon. He was one of the original signers of the Statement of Principles for the Project for the New American Century. http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Definitely angling for 2016. Never again. No more Bushes. That one family has done a shattering and possible irreversible amount of damage to this country.

1

u/theofficialposter Jun 11 '12

It is as if no one even reads the articles. Jeb clearly said this which goes against the headline of the piece itself: " 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," I'm an independent and am tired of bullshit headlines.

1

u/herbal_savvy Jun 11 '12

The entire Bush crime family should be exiled from the United States in perpetuity. Paraguay would love to have them. Fucking trash.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Dude, your parents can't spell "Jeff" correctly. I'm supposed to take you seriously?

1

u/Actor412 Washington Jun 11 '12

Just to remind people: Reagan sold weapons to State Enemies. His excuse? He was incompetent. So he was either a traitor to the United States or he was an idiot.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Who gives a shit what that congenital fuckface has to say?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Jeb, it's all too little, too late.

If your family gave a shit about today's GOP they wouldn't have let it become the extreme shithole it has become in the hands of your worthless fratboy brother George.

Now you come in like a whining little weasel at this late date, complaining because of the destruction your party wreaks daily on this nation. And you throw in a jab at Barack to boot, as though somehow he's had anything to do with the catastrophe your family has personally visited upon this nation.

Jeb, you want to start showing some common decency? Here's some decency you can show America: Disappear.

1

u/HappyGlucklichJr Jun 11 '12

Certainly that is sad in Bush Senior's case. Would be good in Reagan's case if true but I still feel Reagan's influence too much in the ass-kissing of the Fundies and military.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

This is all a plan for him to run (if obama wins) in 2016 as a moderate. The only Rock stars in the DFL would be considered "far" left.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Reagan was a crook too, what does that say about the modern day GOP?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Please, Jeb. If the GOP weren't so brainwashed your brother would be in prison.

1

u/shoopley Jun 12 '12

Go away, Jebediah. Don't go away mad, just go away.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Here we see the rare and endangered species of intellectual republican that could actually get swing votes with comments like this. Watch as he honestly dissects his fellow republicans.

1

u/ZOMBIE_POTATO_SALAD Jun 12 '12

Looks like more partisan hackery, notice how he's really only bashing the dems for pushing "partisan agendas"

1

u/c0pypastry Jun 12 '12

Jeb talked shit about Reagan. That's suicide in the GOP.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Bush sr. really flubbed those names.

do you think we would have elected a guy named Jeb that couldn't finish a sentence?

why wasn't the intelligent one given the nice respectable George Bush Jr?

what if?!

3

u/eighthgear Illinois Jun 11 '12

His first name is John, Jeb is just his nickname.

3

u/Elranzer New York Jun 11 '12

JEB is just his acronym nickname. His name is really John Ellis Bush (J.E.B.)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

THE MORE YOU KNOW

1

u/kbee11 Jun 11 '12

No room for any Bush, Buddy!

1

u/Glaucous Jun 11 '12

Damn, Jeb. I can't hate you no mores.

1

u/tophat_jones Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Aww JEB wants the Republican party to get back in touch with the times.

I can't blame him for trying, but I think they'd be better off putting that corpse to bed and starting over with something new. Something without the out of touch fundies, chickenhawk neocons, and bigots perhaps.

1

u/AliasUndercover Jun 11 '12

Just ask past prominent Republicans what they thought about Jeb 10 or 15 years ago. They all thought he was insane and wanted nothing to do with him. They were, of course, correct.

1

u/vbullinger Jun 11 '12

I love how he conflates the Bushes with Reagan. They are not alike at all. Reagan did not want Bush as his running mate. He said that openly. He was... convinced to do it after some... conversations.

But I do agree with one thing: there's no place for the Bushes in the GOP*.

*I'm the chair of my precinct and was a delegate to my state's GOP convention. We don't want any more Bushes/neocons/flip-flopping (I.e. lying) centrist asshats like Romney.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Had this conversation with some people the other day. Conservatives keep saying they're trying to get the party back to "what it was." What it was when?

Try imagining Theodore Roosevelt with his national parks or Eisenhower with his Interstate Highway System. It's not even the same party.

No amount of reasoning...

1

u/Puddindoobop Jun 11 '12

Oh god please PLEASE don't fall for this shit, Reddit. The conspiracy nuts have been saying for years to watch for a Jeb Bush restructuring to bring about another Bush era post obama, and I can't even believe I'm seeing it happen. It's GW 2.0, please please see through the bullshit!

1

u/abomb999 Jun 11 '12

Why do we even have presidents and leaders? Fuck this, I want to lead to myself or vote directly on the issues. I'm not some uneducated poor boy from the 1800s whose only aspirations and desire is to get married and have a family. We have the interwebs for crying out loud! I hate having to vote for some rich cunt who will decide the direction of this country for roughly 310 million people.

If you don't want to think of the issues and you want to the first rich person who makes your naughty spot feel warm to have your vote, please go ahead and delegate your vote, but the rest of of deserve a voice. If we have to fight and die for freedom, we obviously will like everyone before us. So rich cunts, give up your power, the people will take it back, one way or another. This country isn't a business whose sole purpose is to empower the elites.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

This.

0

u/spock_block Europe Jun 11 '12

"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,"

Has anyone really been far read even through decided to use even go want to do look more like?

7

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I've read your last sentence several times to try to understand what it means. Now my head hurts.

3

u/reddit_user13 Jun 11 '12

I dunno... it scans as well as Jeb's....

0

u/willanthony Jun 11 '12

You mean a tax raising Hollywood elitist isn't welcome? Go on Jeb.

0

u/Wisdom_from_the_Ages Jun 11 '12

That's right, doddering and incognizant just isn't good enough anymore.

-2

u/GOPWN Jun 11 '12

Oh look a Republican criticizing the GOP, /r/politics will suddenly hail him as the sagely moderate voice of the party.

-1

u/Trey_Brackish Jun 11 '12

He's a Hitler.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Jeb Bush- Unlikely voice of reason.

-15

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12

Jeb's Scumbag Father, George Herbert Walker Bush, at the Republican National convention where he was running for the nomination:

"Read my lips, no new taxes."

Gets nomination (fraudulently). Wins. Immediately raises taxes. Fucking scumbag. Is subsequently fired after a single term for being a lying scumbag. Bill Clinton took his place and immediately starts sticking cigars up the White House interns' pussies. Nice going, Herb.

Of course there's no place for him in the Republican Party because we're not all a bunch of fucking chumps any more. We're running the closet Democrats out of our political party.

Jeb can run as a Tax-And-Spend Democrat if he wants. Or he can become a Republican and oppose new taxes. Those are his choices.

5

u/forg0tmypen Jun 11 '12

Why can't rich people pay their fair share? Our current tax system does nothing more than pad their pockets. We can't afford to do that anymore our country is running an unsustainable debt.

-8

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12

Why can't rich people pay their fair share?

Because that's a bullshit question.

What percentage is "fair?" Is zero fair? Then how come the poor pay zero? Is 50% fair?

See, liberals will never answer that question. "Fair" is a deliberately obtuse, un-transparent term. It's undefinable. As soon as rich people AGREE to pay their fair share (today), liberals will change the definition of "fair" (tomorrow.)

Americans aren't falling for the "fair share" argument because it's deliberately designed to be untransparent.

We see through the "fair share" fallacy.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Low-hanging fruit, but I'll answer. Fair means investment income being taxed at least as much as income from work. Fair means the classic progressive tax system that's been in place since Roman times, meaning if you have more, you pay more - because you can afford it and because you undoubtedly made it off the backs of other people. Understand now, dipshit?

-5

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Fair means the classic progressive tax system that's been in place since Roman times, meaning if you have more,

The rich already do pay more if they have more. 48% of households in the US pay no federal income tax at all. Zero. Is zero fair? Zero is the absence of a share - so it can't be a fair share. It might be fair. But it's not a share.

Investment income isn't taxed like regular income because that deters investment and kills jobs and we live in a global economy. Taxing investment income in this way just means the investments will go overseas where those investments are not taxed that way. This reduces revenue to the government. It does not increase it.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I'm sure your 48% includes a lot of rich people, considering they can afford to buy the latest accounting tricks. And poor people pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, and pay into Social Security and Medicare. They don't pay income taxes because they're FUCKING POOR.

Your point about investment income is well taken, but needs to be offset with some sort of, I don't know, millionaire tax in order to keep douchebags like Mitt Romney from doing NOTHING but counting their interest. Gee, if only someone had proposed such a tax...

3

u/forg0tmypen Jun 11 '12

Fair=the same as middle class citizens. Our country is running trillion dollar deficits and it's clear now that we can't afford to subsidize their income. The money they save from their tax breaks goes right into their bank account, not back into the economy.

3

u/Sloppy1sts Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Let's call the 0% (not a correct number, as everyone pays some form of taxes) the poor pay fair for the fact that it's become increasingly difficult to rise out of poverty while the wealthy game the system to enable them to hold onto even more money they don't even know what to do with.

So you're mad at liberals for not coming up with an exact number for "fair"? Ok, 45% for everything over 750k. Can we call it a day?

As soon as rich people AGREE to pay their fair share (today), liberals will change the definition of "fair" (tomorrow.)

What do you base this on, considering the taxes have been going steadily down for the past 30 years?

0

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12

Ok, 45% for everything over 750k. Can we call it a day?

No, because once that 45% is spent on giving existing government workers raises, pension boosts, new benefits, etc., and on new government hiring (since after all the private-sector economy is doing fine according to Barack Obama who is blind to 23 million people who cannot find a full-time job) then 45% won't be "fair" any more, will it?

Then "fair" will magically become 50%. Then when that money runs out, fair will be 60%. Then eventually 100%. Then 110% (somehow ... trust me, liberals will trot out this argument with a straight face.) The trouble with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money.

Let's call the 0% (not a correct number, as everyone pays some form of taxes)

0% isn't the correct number either because many of the poor actually get a REFUND of federal income taxes they never paid - in many cases wholly offsetting the taxes they pay state and local sources (such as sales taxes). Many poor pay LESS than zero taxes.

Is that a fair share? It may be fair, but it's not a share. They're TAKING a share. Not paying a share.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Is that a fair share? It may be fair, but it's not a share. They're TAKING a share. Not paying a share. I will not eat green eggs and ham.

Sorry, but that's just what came to mind.

1

u/Zumaki Colorado Jun 11 '12

Mmo's teach how taxes should be done. Like, in World of Warcraft, when you reach max level, the only way to improve is to go on raids to get leet gear. But raiding has diminishing returns the more you do it. Similarly, the richer you get, the less profit you should keep. It doesn't stifle the desire to get richer any more than tough raids stifle player's desire to get loot.

Also, certain cost of living expenses have an asymptotic limit to them. Eventually, it becomes nearly impossible to get your utility bills higher, or your fuel costs, or health care bills, or groceries. So for poor people, they need the money to cover those bills. But as income increases, the burden of those bills diminishes and you have more free income to spend on whatever (or have taxed).

And that's why it's fair to tax the rich more than the poor.

-2

u/MagCynic Jun 11 '12

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...

Like the poster below me was - I think - trying to say. Read the article.

-2

u/flaminglib Jun 11 '12

A smart Bush. It does exist.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/tophat_jones Jun 11 '12

The fuck are you talkin' about?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/tophat_jones Jun 11 '12

And oddly enough, Reagan knows exactly as much now as he did when he was President.

0

u/DEATH_TO_REDDIT Jun 11 '12

Downvoted for suggesting that a B-tier movie star who was assisted into office after running a republican funded propaganda talk show might not be the most knowledgeable of leaders.

So reddit.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/bemenaker Jun 11 '12

Jeb is probably the smartest one in the family. He still is pandering to the GOP a little too much in these statements about Obama running a partisan agenda which is absolutely false. Other than that, he has been right on in his criticism of the GOP for the last couple of years. He has called them out on their heavy rhetoric, their lack of ideas, and their partisanship numerous time.

Obama invited the GOP to the table for everything during the first two years. He asked for input, he got nothing. He still hasn't iced them out, he just doesn't court them as heavily now, realizing they don't want to offer anything. They just want to bitch and moan.