Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it's time for the Republican Party to give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election. Continue...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Another Bush in 2012? I think he's got a good shot at the nomination. What's the take on this guy from our Floridian crew?
Oops... Limbaugh Blows Off GOP Rebranding Effort: We Don't Need A "Listening Tour"
He's a dick.
Yea, I am not from Florida, and you did not ask my opinion, So, I will not break my streak of speaking out of term.
I agree with Doug the Floridian, without the mental picture. Remember the Bush family was the best we apparently had. I will speak for myself, but I have said in the past that Bush was way to liberal for me. In fact, I don't think he vetoed a liberal bill from congress. He may have, but I do know that he passed almost every one. Maybe I should Google that? But Bush 41 was liberal, Bush 43 was liberal, but better than what the democrats had offered. But remember that I have said in the past the only thing I liked about Bush, was his war on terror. I think Bush outspent Clinton.
That's about what I've come to expect from the Bushes, bunch of one world assholes. Hope Jeb gets beaten down in the primaries.
I'm not interested in more Bush's - we don't need any royal families on either side of the aisle.
That being said, we don't need to rebrand the republican party. We don't need coke versus pepsi where both parties are on the left of the slide scale. We need milk versus pepsi instead.
The solution is not to make the republican more like democrats. There would be no point to that - a "two party" system where both parties have the same platform. Rather, we conservatives need to find leaders who can articulate the conservative values and ideals (like Reagan could, but not Reagan clone). We are fighting against a liberal media, education system and conventional wisdom. In some cases the conservative side is simply silenced and in other cases, it is grossly misrepresented. I don't agree that voters reject conservative principles, many simply don't know what they are.
The GOP should be the party of conservatives. If they choose to abandon this, then I have no use for them. I don't care about reps getting elected so they have power, rather I care about representation of the conservative ideals I believe in. What party carries this banner means nothing to me.
You can come join me in the independent side. It's kind of nice actually since as an independent your party never wins anything so you get to bitch about everybody.
Thats gay Doug. Thats taking the easy way out. You gotta have some core values and vote that way. Just because Jeb Bush says something doesn't make it so. True conservatives are gonna vote conservative. It may not happen this time around but eventually it will. Just because incumbant republicans are saying this is the way it is doesn't make it so. I would like to say I'm independant but I'm really not. I can't be lumped in with the far right but I'm certainly right of center. We should have term limits because then you know that the assholes have to get out. If someones doing a hell of a job and is well liked by the voters then so what. He can sit out one term and run again when he's eligible. That way we'll be getting new blood in government.
yes, I think I found something I can agree with Matt about.. term limits.
Mat and Juliet, isn't it funny that most every voting American thinks that term limits are a good thing, but the politicians who tout doing the business of their constituents, don't?
I agree with both of you and most of American voters.
I never have understood term limits or those that support them. Seems to me if someone is doing a good job you want to keep them around. If not then there is a vehicle in place for their removal regularly scheduled and commonly referred to as elections.
Doug, my take on that is "name recognition". Sometimes people are re-elected soley on name and not the job they do. I have found through conversation with people is that they usually don't know what their represetatives have voted for or against.
So in other words since a majority of the electorate chooses to wallow in their own ignorance of public affairs, the rest of us are to be deprived of the opportunity of continuing to reelect those that perform exemplary public service.
Yet I am the one "taking the easy way out".
On the contrary Doug, you have every right to enjoy the perpetual re-election of your favorite guy/gal.
But, you blew it bad on this one.
1) ignorance is bliss, and they say I am the happiest man around.
2) perform "expulary", ha haa haaa haaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
3) as much as you know what it is you want and believe, you have not take the "easy way out"
no wool pulled over my eyes
What's "expulary" mean?
It is short for "exemplary", spell check didn't catch it, go figure.
Only term limits Juliet? I'm hurt.Hahhaha.
Okay so maybe exemplary wasn't the best choice of words. But the point I was trying to make was if you feel someone's doing an okay enough job to keep him around then you ought to have that option.
Doug, I was just having fun, that's all.
But the thing is, if a polatition is doing a great job where he/she is, then they should try to move up or sideways on the ladder. To stay at one position just because they know they will be elected means they are not doing what they were elected to do. Ted Kennedy is a prime example.
DRL,
ever heard of the "Peter Principle"?
It basically talks about the American tradition of continually promoting people based on good performance until they are promoted to a job that they suck at. Their level of incompetence.
There's is nothing wrong with finding something you are good at and sticking with it.
Nope Doug, I have no idea.
Post a Comment