Bush: No More Reagan

The terrific irony here isn't that it's a Bush saying no more Reagan, it's that exit polls showed individual policies actually had little to do with Obama's win. National elections tend to be more thematic, than they are wonkish. All the Democrats really did was demonize Republicans, call for change and voice a lot of platitudes.

Between Jeb Bush and Romney on the new Republican listening tour, it's hard to know precisely what they are saying with this. Principles good, Reagan bad? As Reagan had a serious libertarian streak, helping to defeat an anti-gay ballot measure in CA at one point, I wonder if they aren't really saying, lose the Moral Majority stuff, but think Reagan the easier target.

Jeb Bush: 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.

"You can't beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don't like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that," Mr. Bush said.

Romney: "The Republican Party is founded on some common-sense conservative principles that are as effective today as they've always been. We just need to make sure we're listening to the people," he said.

It also bothers me that this could be interpreted as their being statist Republicans who really believe government can be the answer to everything. They just think they can govern smarter, somehow. That ignores the extent to which government bureaucracy has a life and mind of its own today and will never be very effective and always be intrusive.

Until I understand what it is about Reagan's populist appeal that attracted so many blue collar Democrats with the theme of less government, lower taxes and a strong America, I'm more likely to conclude no more Bushes, or Romney, than I am Reagan.

I believe Republicans need to look outside the beltway and beyond their contemporary elites if they want to have a shot going forward.

Comments

[David R. Graham]

At the risk of self-promotion, I would like to offer this by way of a perhaps non-obvious concurrence. Jeb and Mit are tepid, casting about.

I think my point is "go them far better," trump them, and directionally as would actually help people and government, is fully possible and would preserve and promote the integrity and independence of the professions, the entrepreneurs and the trades, which is essential.

Think the choral movement of Ludwig v's 9th Symphony, von Karajan conducting BPO, which is playing as I write on Connoisseur Classics.

[David R. Graham]

OK, I did not understand the protocols, here is the URL:

http://web.me.com/wp650385/AH-Home/Theological_Geography/Entries/2009/5/3_Let_Them_Have_Their_Communism.html

[LOL]

I still don't understand why you seem to think you know a way for Republicans to win elections. Your way of thinking isn't that popular. And the people who do share your way of thinking are dying more than they are being born.

[JCW]

The choice between the various moderate Republicans means that the next candidate will, like the last one, be decided by crossover votes in the primaries. Many of those votes were shaped by the media elites that portray the "moderate" as more appealing...much the same way the viewed those (Ford/Bush-41) who differed with Reagan.

[ajacksonian]

Now, if you are a Republican you can identify the speaker:

"The most important factor in getting the right spirit in my Administration, next to the insistence upon courage, honesty, and a genuine democracy of desire to serve the plain people, was my insistence upon the theory that the executive power was limited only by specific restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution or imposed by the Congress under its Constitutional powers. My view was that every executive officer, and above all every executive officer in high position, was a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do all he could for the people, and not to content himself with the negative merit of keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin. I declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the Nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it. My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws. Under this interpretation of executive power I did and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the heads of the departments. I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power. In other words, I acted for the public welfare, I acted for the common well-being of all our people, whenever and in whatever manner was necessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative prohibition. I did not care a rap for the mere form and show of power; I cared immensely for the use that could be made of the substance. The Senate at one time objected to my communicating with them in printing, preferring the expensive, foolish, and laborious practice of writing out the messages by hand. It was not possible to return to the outworn archaism of hand writing; but we endeavored to have the printing made as pretty as possible. Whether I communicated with the Congress in writing or by word of mouth, and whether the writing was by a machine, or a pen, were equally, and absolutely, unimportant matters. The importance lay in what I said and in the heed paid to what I said. So as to my meeting and consulting Senators, Congressmen, politicians, financiers, and labor men. I consulted all who wished to see me; and if I wished to see any one, I sent for him; and where the consultation took place was a matter of supreme unimportance. I consulted every man with the sincere hope that I could profit by and follow his advice; I consulted every member of Congress who wished to be consulted, hoping to be able to come to an agreement of action with him; and I always finally acted as my conscience and common sense bade me act."

Does this sound familiar? Notice that bit where specific prohibitions by the Constitution were, really, just hampering the job?

And the expansive view of government, notice that?

So who could that be?

Well, its not Reagan. Not LBJ. Not Nixon. Not FDR. Not Wilson.

That is Theodore Roosevelt in his own autobiography, Chapter X where he has much else to say about the backwards conservatives, States Rights 'fetish' followers, and, generally, forgot that power accrues to the office, not the individual, until you get someone able to overturn the system itself. The most vehement attacks are saved for another Progressive, however, but that is later on when he responds to campaign charges against him. Think about what this view did to shaping the Presidency in the early 20th century, and ask exactly *where* does Barack Obama vary in the overall thrust of it?

If you are a conservative or non-Leftist, TR's autobiography, particularly Ch. 10 and the additional material dealing with his last Presidential campaign are required reading. When you look at the political 'spectrum' today it is of degree to which politicians swing to this view... getting a different view in edge-wise to crack open the system requires patience, persistence and actually dismantling the edifice of the State. Republicans promised to do this, and then didn't carry through.

More at Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3335

[Jimbo]

Wow...How is the wilderness working out for ya? 20% identify as GOP - 20%! I thought Rove said something about a permanent majority? You GOP thugs got what you deserve: derision and irrelevancy. Your time has passed, your ideas are yesterday. You should have done more for the country, and less for yourselves. But, the GOP was always a smallish cult anyway. You hate everyone but yourselves. Big tent, indeed!

[David R. Graham]

LOL is presenting hope as fact, wish as accomplishment. I see no need to accept that pretense.

ajacksonian is misrepresenting TR's attitude to Constitutional and legal parameters on the exercise of executive authority. They did not hamper him, they told him where the fence stood.

A fence only hampers one who does not accept it. TR accepted fences. He was a naturalist.

Life is only possible because of boundaries, the ends of things. Without boundaries there would be only blobs.

The current administration and legislature do not feel hampered by either Constitution or law. But not the same was TR did not. These actors simply deny the existence of boundaries at all. That is why the structure of the nation is turning to blob.

The self-destructive weakness of denying boundaries is that it takes boundaries (e.g., a mind, a mouth, a string of formed words, etc.) to deny boundaries. This phenomenon parallels the irony that declaring there to be no absolutes is stating an absolute and therefore hilariously and fatally self-contradictory.

Curious that the pretense of indomitability postured by this administration and legislature and their minions, as so inevitably is the case for pretense per se, must be maintained by rhetorical devices and intellectual deceits because facts and beauty do drive them hence as surely as does a river an obstruction. LOL indeed.

I am an Ulster-Scot Jacksonian, as Andy was. Which is to say, I am a Native American.

Dharma protects those who support Dharma.

[gary gulrud]

Sorry Jeb, I've been reasonable. The better of evils is a losing strategy. I'm not playing anymore and neither are millions of my peers.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- I still don't understand why you seem to think you know a way for Republicans to win elections. --"

I think the killer quote is right there: "All the Democrats really did was demonize Republicans, call for change and voice a lot of platitudes." Dan still has no idea how or why Obama won the '08 election. He just assumes it was a battle of wordsmiths and Barry outspoke McCain, thus tricking 53% of American voters into choosing him.

Dan has no idea what policies are effective or popular. All things being equal, I don't think he can imagine a McCain Presidency in which the nation was a significantly different place. He is unable to connect policy with progress. That's what lets him hate Clinton so passionately and rail on against "socialist" Democrats without feeling silly. The idea that our economy would have grown any less robustly under Bush 41 / Dole between '92 and '00 is completely alien to him. He can't believe that Iraq/Afghanistan could have gone any better under Gore than Bush 43. Or that the various market bubbles could have been averted. Or hurricane Katrina have been less of a disaster.

There's absolutely no link between who is in office and what is happening in the world. It's all just pretty talk and style points for him.

"-- Sorry Jeb, I've been reasonable. The better of evils is a losing strategy. --"

I do love this. When the Republicans and Democrats waged ideological warfare during the Clinton and pre-9/11 Bush era, the general consensus was that it was a matter of bean counting. Republicans embraced laize-faire policy and trickle down tax cut economics while Democrats preferred low-income assistance and increased regulation reforms. But everyone agreed the end goal was the grow the economy, one way or another.

Now, the GOoPers are putting themselves into a rhetorical position of embracing various evils. Either you embrace the evil of environmentalism, or you accept the evil of pollution. Choose between evil socialized medicine or an evil political climate that hedges you out in Washington. Evil tax hikes on the rich or an evil trillion dollar deficit.

Back in the 90s, the Republicans tried to make sure that any liberal platform remained business friendly. Thus, an expansion of HUD would be accompanied by looser regulations for home builders. Or an increase in food stamps would accompany welfare reform. A hike in minimum wage needed a corresponding cut in business taxes. There was balance designed to keep everyone happy.

So in the 90s, the GOP always felt like it was winning. And it could point to triumph after triumph in policy and practice. But under Obama, the GOP is just dead set on making itself more and more miserable. Even were you to "win", you'd lose, because at some point you're embracing some evil that sours your appeal in the party. It's a recipe for disaster. :-p

[gary gulrud]

"Even were you to "win", you'd lose, because at some point you're embracing some evil that sours your appeal in the party. It's a recipe for disaster."

I'd go along with that take, as long as it acknowledges that disaster has overtaken all of us.

[David R. Graham]

What's an IslamoLama, a Mohammedan in a shaggy coat operating ChiCom agitprop from Tibet?

Is trash talk common-place on this website, I am new here?

Perhaps it is just the subject of this post by Dan.

If so, then the amount and vehemence of the trash talk here in the comments indicates that he touched a topic of serious concern to the trash talkers.

Even if not, the persistence of the trash talk, as if by desperation to put the final nail in a coffin before something unwanted happens (an assumed corpse raising, perhaps, perhaps Sarah Palin?), recalls the methods of the ruthlessly unscrupulous (essentially, murderous) anti-American when projecting an odious development upon their future. In other words, idling druggies.

[LOL]

I'm just pointing out some facts.

Dan's favored candidates crashed and burned in the Repub primaries. Dan's lesser-of-two-evils lost in the main election. If someone like Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney had run against Obama, it would have been a complete drubbing. Probably ~60/40. If Sarah Palin becomes the prez nominee, it's also going to be a blowout for Obama in 2012.

When do you face up to the fact that your ideas are unpopular?

When do you face up to them failing?

[SDN]

When do you face u to the fact that Obama shouldn't be in the White House; he should be in jail for deliberately disabling address and donation amount checking on his online donations, allowing him to collect 35 million in illegal donations? If your opponents are following laws you don't have to, you win.

[Alex]

You know, I happen to remember that a whole hell of a lot of people voted for the other guy, LOL, and I don't know how one election won by a few percentage points all of a sudden means that there is only one accepted ideology in America. And now, since the other 48% lost, they automatically changed their minds and are now Obamabots. Or, you might think that winning a few more percentage points means that those other 48%, and their opinions and ideas, no longer exist, and the majority can now do whatever it likes without any concern for the minority. Sure is progressive of you.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- When do you face u to the fact that Obama shouldn't be in the White House; he should be in jail for deliberately disabling address and donation amount checking on his online donations, allowing him to collect 35 million in illegal donations? --"

Someone at the Bush DoJ should have probably investigated this. Someone in the 20-30 Red State AG Offices probably should have investigated this. Someone in the hundreds of counties and municipalities across the country, or in one of the dozens of big name and small time right wing media and print organizations should have researched into this and followed the money. Maybe they were all stopped. Maybe this isn't just Obama monkeying around with campaign money. Maybe Bush was in on it too. Maybe it's all a conspiracy.

:-p

Cunningham got busted for $2 million in bribes. Ney is serving time for several grand in illegal campaign contributions. Stevens was convicted at trial over accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in free home renovations. The Governor of NY lost his seat over a prostitution scandal. Senator Craig from Idaho was busted toe-tapping away in a Minnesota bathroom. Former Presidential candidate John Edwards got busted with a secret kid and mistress.

But Obama managed to funnel $35 MILLION dollars into his Presidential campaign and not a single federal, state, or local agent, not a news agency or a political opposition group, was able to rally the evidence to bust him on it.

If you're that good a crook, maybe you deserve to be in office, eh?

[IslamoLlama]

"-- You know, I happen to remember that a whole hell of a lot of people voted for the other guy, LOL, and I don't know how one election won by a few percentage points all of a sudden means that there is only one accepted ideology in America. --"

Mandate, bitches! Elections have consequences! Sore / Loserman! Why can't you put aside your partisan bickering and be more bipartisan?! Permanent Majority!

/wingnut '02

[David R. Graham]

LOL, LOL again, you are broadcasting propaganda, not pointing out facts. You do a good job, but it is transparent.

The last presidential election was won by fraud, that is the relevant fact and you know it. The facts about the candidates of both parties were suppressed. You know that too. You are still doing it.

And you continue the effort to suppress awareness of that fraudulence. This is called propaganda, not facts. An earlier agency called it agitprop.

I seem to recall the Iraqi Public Information Minister announcing the glorious Iraqi Armed Forces, as the Hand of Allah, was massacring the Crusaders right up to the point where an American Soldier jerked him away from his microphone, or cut his feed, I forget which.

The goal of this administration and legislature is to either prevent another election entirely -- by declaring a national emergency over conditions it created (a "Reichstag Fire") -- or to ensure it is so fraudulently conducted as to be reliably theirs to declare "won."

Thus their subsidies for their nascent "domestic security force," aka ACORN and its combat support and combat service support agencies.

There are facts here, indeed, ones you and your co-workers labor to suppress. And you do a good job of it.

And with good reason you should, for a fair election would put this administration and legislature -- and not a few of its minions -- in the Big House, which is their destination in any case.

So here is a fact, not yet too apparent, but present: the soi-disant MSM, so far voluntarily acting as Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda to this administration and legislature, is not standing and will not stand monolithic in that voluntary capacity.

Americans dislike two behaviors, misogyny and bullying. They like fairness and do not abide galoots.

The misogyny and bullying intrinsic to this administration and legislature and their minions domestic and foreign drive the MSM and a super-majority of voters away from them. Eventually it will drive them into the hands of prosecutors and the laps of juries.

My wishful thinking? I am content to observe developments and meanwhile enjoy noting facts that are facts.

[tk]

I am 65 years of old an care less about men who want to have sex with each other. As a young sailor I was harassed by many of them. I always felt sorry for them. To pretend their behavior is normal is not correct.