jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (13 posts)

Today's GOP would likely kick Reagan to curb, says Jeb Bush

  1. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    "Back to my dad's time and Ronald Reagan's time -- they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support," Bush said, adding that Reagan "would be criticized for doing the things that he did."
    ...", would have "a hard time" navigating a GOP terrain "that doesn't allow for disagreement, doesn't allow for finding some common ground."
    http://now.msn.com/now/0611-GOP-jeb-bush-reagan.aspx
    What do GOP hubbers think? is he correct?

    1. American View profile image55
      American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Stacie,

      Well as usual when it comes to MSNBC/MSN, they don't give the entire story. Here is the actual story and you'll see how the statements were taken out of context:

      By Morgan Little
      June 11, 2012, 8:52 a.m.

      The venerated Ronald Reagan may not have been able to reach the presidency in today’s Republican party, Jeb Bush said during a meeting with Bloomberg reporters in New York City on Monday morning.

      Bush labeled the nation’s partisan bickering “disturbing,” placing much of the blame on the way President Obama conducted his first term.

      “His first year could have been a year of enormous accomplishment had he focused on things where there was more common ground,” Bush said, according to Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith.

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

      Bush portrayed his father and Reagan’s penchant for reaching across the aisle to achieve their political goals as out of style compared with Washington’s “temporary” partisan fervor, and said such tendencies would have lead to a difficult path toward the presidential nomination.

      “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,” he said."

      Notice how the article from MSN conveniently leaves out " if you define the Republican Party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy"  and inserts "navigating a GOP terrain" which of course is not in the article. Not to mention Bush clearly says he doesn't agree.

  2. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    No GOP on here?

  3. eternals3ptember profile image60
    eternals3ptemberposted 5 years ago

    Not a lot of grumpy old people...

  4. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    I've been saying the same thing about Ronnie. I think the same way about JFK and most modern Dems, too.

  5. Bob Zermop profile image89
    Bob Zermopposted 5 years ago

    Yes, he is completely correct! The GOP (well, neither party, but especially the GOP) no longer values bipartisanship, or even thinking! Today, I'm still absolutely conservative, but I no longer consider myself Republican.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Ronnie would be considered slightly left of Barack by today's measures.

    1. American View profile image55
      American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      MM,

      I disagree, Obama is very far left, Reagan was probably more middle right with some far right views mixed in. What Reagan and other presidents in the past did was get people to work together. You have to know before you become President, or even if you want to be a Congressman, you have to know that there is a group is going to disagree with your point of view. It would take civil discussions and compromising to cure the issues our country faces today, much like was done years ago
      .
      That is the reason reason it would be harder for Reagan today is because both sides no longer respect the other sides views, they refuse to sit and have rational discussions. Until that changes, our country continue down the same road until we get to the end and go right off that cliff

      1. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I agree that how politics has worked in the past --and this includes "old school" senators of today like John McCain -- is working across the aisle.
        Obama is finding that "One term president" bloc is immovable but he spent 2 years desperately trying to keep reaching and keep conversing.
        And moving further away from his own hard left bloc.
        But as he found, you can't legislate by negotiation if the other side refuses to budge.
        Same with unions negotiating with management.

        What will happen when the Tea Party fills the entire Congress, I wonder?
        sad

        1. Wesley Meacham profile image87
          Wesley Meachamposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          They'll dump the whole the in the harbor and call it a day.

        2. American View profile image55
          American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          MM,

          Well the tea party could never fill Congress in its entirety, notice how they fell apart after the election in 2010. They can try and revive themselves, but their glory days are behind them

          .I disagree with what you believe Obama and the one term president block. The Democrats said the same thing about George Bush after the 2000 election. But because of 9/11 they backed off. After Bush defeated Kerry, the Democrats rallied again and that was how they took back control of the House and Senate.

          Do the Republicans make Obama's job easy, no and they shouldn't, just like the Democrats did not make George Bush's job easy, and they shouldn't have made it easy. I believe we can say the same thing about every president in the past. No matter who the president was, the other side did not make the job easy. The difference of the past is at least they could come to a compromise. Today it is totally impossible. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are dug into their bunkers and neither will move. What this country needs is a leader that will, from one bunker to the other and do a Gibb's and smacked them both in the back of the head and make them work together.

          Truth is neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have the answers, both their platforms are incomplete. However, if you pull some from one side and pull some from the other side and put it together, a solution can be found. But how can you do that when neither side listens.

  7. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    I do think Ronald Reagen would not be elected today considering the political climate and the changes the GOP have undergone. The Democrats have also changed and perhaps JFK wouldn't be elected either.
    Both major parties need to go back to their original principles and stop being lead by big business.

    1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I agree Stacie, the polarization began with Newt Gingrich & Dick Armey becoming the surrogates of conservative think-tanks funded by fat-cats.

      http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/Reagan.gif

      And then there's the religious zealots who have also commandeered the GOP and also refuse to compromise . . .

      https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/534392_10150878307726275_889511192_n.jpg

 
working