Did Jeb Bush really say today’s GOP would spurn Reagan?
A lot of people seem much more confident than I about what Jeb Bush meant in this rambling statement he made to Bloomberg:
“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.”
Come again?
Streamline the statement, and it would appear the former Florida governor said:
“Ronald Reagan … based on his record of finding … common ground, similar to my dad … would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party … as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement.”
That’s how it’s being interpreted on the left, anyway. But Bush himself doesn’t even agree with that statement, as the “and I don’t” interjection makes clear. Instead, he appears to be agreeing with liberals that their common complaint that today’s GOP is out of step with Reaganism would be true, if only it weren’t false. Why he would put himself in the position of confirming a liberal straw man only to knock it down — knowing the confirmation would get more press — I do not know.
As we discussed just Friday, however, context is always helpful. And Bush book-ended the aforementioned statement with these:
“They got a lot of things done with bipartisan support, but right now it’s just difficult to imagine.”
and
“We’re in a political system in general that is in a very different place right now.”
Well, if Republican presidents used to be able to accomplish things “with bipartisan support,” and now that’s “difficult to imagine,” whose fault might that be? Bipartisanship requires two parties, so we can only guess he can’t see the Democrats going along if Reagan or Bush’s father were president today. Which is very different from the interpretation that today’s Republicans are out of step with their own predecessors.
The current president is a Democrat, so was Bush chiding the Republican members of Congress? Maybe, but that’s not necessarily what the rest of the Bloomberg report indicates:
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.”
In other words, you have an elder statesman of the Republican Party saying a Democratic president failed to lead on an important issue. Which isn’t much of a story — or wouldn’t be, if a certain elder Democratic statesman hadn’t had so much trouble staying on message lately.
As for Bush’s line about having “a political system in general that is in a very different place right now,” I agree. Once upon a time, both sides in an argument presented their solutions, upon which they could negotiate a compromise. Today, we have a House Republican budget that is dismissed out of hand by Senate Democrats; transparently base-pandering budgets from the president which Senate Democrats have declined to endorse; and the failure of Senate Democrats to produce any kind of budget of their own for more than three years running.
Do you notice a common thread there?
Senate Democrats, and White House aides giving them cover, like to blame GOP obstructionism for this abdication of their responsibilities. But budget bills are not subject to cloture rules. Harry Reid could bring a budget to a vote any time he wanted and pass it with just 51 votes, or 50 votes plus Vice President Biden as a tiebreaker. Of course, that would require his fellow Democrats running the chamber’s committees to produce a budget that could be voted upon.
Instead, they seem to adopt the stance Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner took earlier this year toward the House GOP plan on behalf of the Obama administration:
We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to our long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.
If Bush, or anyone else, wants to complain about do-nothingism and the lack of compromise, they ought to recognize that each side has to declare what it wants before the other can meet it halfway.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
174 comments Add your comment
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 12th, 2012
10:46 am
bu2….nailed it.
I said during the campaign that Obozo was “Hillary without the hate”. Wrong. More like “Hillary without a clue”. Obozo hates America and is actively working to weaken it.
Progressive Humanist
June 12th, 2012
10:55 am
Agnostic, huh? That’s the first thing you’ve ever written that made you look like you’ve got a lick of sense.
You’re still in denial if you think nothing can be accurately predicted more than 3 weeks out. Right now we already know how 42 states will vote. Of the last 8 states that are still up in the air, Obama won them all in 2008 and Romney will have to win all of them to get to 270 (Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, & Florida) . However you’d like to slice it, the electoral college looks bleak at best for Romney.
Yes, I’m sure you’re a real statistics wiz. And it’s pretty common that guys like you blogging from trailers know more about statistics than professors who conduct and teach research. Your fantasy world is pretty amusing to those of us who live in the real world. And didn’t you say one time that you are retired? If so, then it seems as if you are the one on the government dole, and I’m the one who has never been on it. You’re a strange, strange lady with strange, strange concepts of the world.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 12th, 2012
11:15 am
“Right now we already know how 42 states will vote.”
No, actually, “we” don’t. You may “think” (a term I use very loosely when describing your abilities) you know how 42 states will vote, but you really don’t know.
And yes, I am retired, but I am not on the government dole. Unlike you who rely on employment at a government funded university for your subsistence, I retired early – very early – and don’t have to rely on government for my subsistence. However, when the time comes to retrieve the money that was taken from me by force, I’ll be first in line to get back what once was mine and will be mine again.
And I’ve never lived in a trailer, however, I do cruise the country in my mobile home enjoying different parts of this nation whenever I wish while you toil in obscurity teaching noting of significance to addle-headed liberal 99%-ers who leave your class not knowing anything more than when they entered it.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 12th, 2012
11:26 am
Stephanie Cutter, Deputy Campaign manager for the Obama campaign, used as excuse for Obama not hitting his employment and deficit reduction promises in his first term as the following on The Daily Rundown on MSNBC:
“It took us a year and a half to realize what policies we needed to put together.”
Seriously?
What happened to Valerie “We’re ready to rule day one” Jarrett?
With surrogates like these (Booker, Rattner, Clinton, Ford, etc), who needs to campaign against him?
This joke of a President was clueless during the campaign and has remained so for every day of his tenure as the worst President in the history of this nation.
Progressive Humanist
June 12th, 2012
11:38 am
So you think that California will vote for Romney or Texas will go for Obama? That’s why we use probability in statistics. The probability of either of those happening is so low we can safely say we know how they will vote, yes, as far as 5 months out. Most other states fall into the same category.
Forced “retirement”, huh? It’s not a surprise that no one could put up with an @rse like you and you were shown the door. You’ve probably seen quite a few doors slam across your backside in your day.
I’m glad you admitted you’ll be the first in line to be on the government dole. Sounds about right for a Tea Party imbecile. Hypocrite.
Trailer? Mobile home? Same difference. It’s nice you finally fessed up to it.
Your powers of telepathy don’t seem to be very strong today, but you can continue with your baseless speculation about my occupational quality, my students’ political persuasions, and what my students don’t learn. I always get a kick out of your mindless delusions.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 12th, 2012
11:46 am
And you folks truly believe Salon.come is liberal rag?
What lies at the nexus of Obama’s targeted drone killings, his self-serving leaks, and his aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers is a president who believes himself above the law, and seems convinced that he alone has a preternatural ability to determine right from wrong.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/12/leaking_war/
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 12th, 2012
11:52 am
Progressive Humanist, once you started to make up quotes of mine, I knew you had lost the argument.
Retirement by choice, son. Because I made my pile and I don’t need to make any more. It is called success, something you’ll never see in your lifetime. The interest earned on my principle each year is likely more than you see in a couple of years of “teaching”.
And even a limited mindset such as yours should know the difference between a trailer and a mobile home. One is usually stationary and requires pulling if it were ever to move, while one is self-propelled. See? You learned something new today, a claim your students can’t make after leaving your presence.
And while there are always certain states that can be accurately predicted as to their voting patterns months in advance, 42 is an unusually high number in this particular campaign season and therefore not even remotely accurate. But accuracy isn’t really your goal, is it, Prog?
And tell me, why shouldn’t I get back that which was taken from me regarding Social Security? Make that case, son. It’s mine. I earned it. And I want it back when I am entitled to it.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 12th, 2012
11:53 am
“And you folks truly believe Salon.come is liberal rag?”
One article out of 1,000 does not make a case that Salon is balanced, Finn.
Fail.
Again.
iggy
June 12th, 2012
11:57 am
Finn, Im putting a frowny face beside your name on the employee of the day calendar.
Nice work!
That Black guy
June 12th, 2012
12:12 pm
Progressive Humanist
June 12th, 2012
10:55 am
And didn’t you say one time that you are retired? If so, then it seems as if you are the one on the government dole, and I’m the one who has never been on it. You’re a strange, strange lady with strange, strange concepts of the world.
_____________________________________________________________________
I’m sure you know that you can retire and not receive a penny from the gov’t, right?
That Black guy
June 12th, 2012
12:16 pm
Progressive Humanist, is it possible for you to comment without the personal attacks?
Do you think your tactics help or harm your cause when it comes to undecided intependents?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 12th, 2012
12:17 pm
Tiberius, that 1 in 1,000 is 1 more than Fox News will ever do regarding a Republican leader.
Progressive Humanist
June 12th, 2012
12:27 pm
Yes, Tib, you won the argument, but only in your own mind, as you do every day with everyone you “debate”. Well, I’ve got to go “toil”, and I’ve had my entertainment inciting the limp d–k old fart with the entitled attitude…
kelly
June 12th, 2012
1:20 pm
Reagan would not be acceptable to today’s republicans because he had the good sense to not start a war in the middle east. Other than that, he was a B actor. Oh, and at one time a union member. But it’s much easier to remember the fictional Reagan.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 12th, 2012
2:23 pm
“Tiberius, that 1 in 1,000 is 1 more than Fox News will ever do regarding a Republican leader.”
First, Finn, that is a deflection.
Second, that is a false statement.
Third, you failed, again.
Kyle Wingfield
June 12th, 2012
2:46 pm
Progressive Humanist: For an alleged college professor, your name-calling would fit well in any kindergarten classroom.
Read these rules and follow them. If you can’t manage that, you’re not welcome here.
Kyle Wingfield
June 12th, 2012
2:53 pm
In four tweets today, Jeb Bush addressed the debate about his comments yesterday:
1. “Am reminded today why I rarely read headlines. #ContextIsImportant”
2. “The point I was making yesterday is this: The political system today is hyperpartisan. Both sides are at fault.”
3. “My dad & Reagan sacrificed political points for good public policy.”
4. “Past 4 years, Democrats have held leadership roles w/opportunities to reach across political aisle. For sake of politics, they haven’t.”
As I write this, he hasn’t sent any other tweets or, to my knowledge, made other comments via other media.
Progressive Humanist
June 12th, 2012
3:50 pm
Good one, Kyle. You’re getting sharper by the minute. Please don’t ban me from this bastion of intellectual debate, this Mecca of high minded philosophy, this oasis of civility. I don’t know what I would do with the 10 minutes a month I spend rolling my eyes at the foolishness I encounter here.
Kyle Wingfield
June 12th, 2012
5:00 pm
PH @ 3:50: I hope you’ll stick around, but that’s your choice.
fair and balanced
June 12th, 2012
7:22 pm
Reagan was pro abortion when Governor of California and had an affair with Nancy before divorcing his first wife. Worse yet he did not care about deficits and spent money on unnecessary military hardware. He helped Ben Laden and Islamic crazies take over in Afghanistan and turned tail and ran when Hezbollah killed 150 Marines in Lebanon and worse yet secretly gave military aid to Iran . Yeah the current right wing idealogues in the Repub. party would not give him the time of day.If he were a Democrat, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and the others would have him impeached.
ld
June 13th, 2012
3:44 pm
Reagan would spurn the GOP — he’d be libertarian?
Bipartisanship is not a magic word | Kyle Wingfield
June 14th, 2012
5:06 am
[...] Bush caused a stir this week when he said partisanship in Washington had gone too far. If that doesn’t sound like news, what really drew [...]
JDW
June 14th, 2012
1:54 pm
@ Kyle…”That’s a cute document you’ve got there, but a) federal budgets are done in fiscal years, not calendar years, and b) the appropriations listed for each year in your document are a couple of hundred billion dollars less than actual federal outlays during that time. So, even if we ignore the fiscal/calendar issue, either your document is incomplete, or it demonstrates that actual spending was in fact far higher than what presidents requested.”
You can thank the Library of Congress for the document (note the verification seal in the lower left). My guess is that the difference you see is the difference between budgeted vs. off budget expenses (mainly Social Security) and the fact that it is in constant dollars apparently around 1980 or so. Fiscal vs. calendar year is really irrelevant over an 8 year timeframe.
“”How much higher? If we assume your document is right about presidential requests, then the requests in the calendar years Reagan was in office — 1981-88 — totaled $4,587.4 billion. Actual outlays in FY81-88 totaled $7,089.2 billion. That’s a difference of $2,501.8 billion or 55%. The gap is even wider if we assume Reagan had more to do with the FY82-89 budgets.”"
Apparently the raw dollar numbers were in aggregate $7,357.6 requested and $7,554.9 spent but when the spent total is adjusted for budget items that are estimated in the original submission (unemployment, interest etc…). If you adjust for those numbers as the House Appropriations Committee did when they conducted a study that compared Reagan’s concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed you find that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.
So as I was saying…this myth that Reagan was mislead on spending or that Congress was responsible is HORSE HOOEY…the man got $29.4 Billion or 4% LESS than he requested.
You can read more analysis than I have time to give you here.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
Kyle Wingfield
June 14th, 2012
2:06 pm
JDW: I wasn’t questioning the document’s origins, but its relevance. Anyway, this is more HORSE HOOEY from you. The (obviously biased) author of the site you linked thinks we should dock Reagan for not predicting the future accurately, even though the author admits only one of the years was truly a rosy scenario. (That also happened to be a year when the economy was expected to recover from a recession, but went back into recession instead because the Fed was tightening monetary policy to get inflation under control.)
The raw numbers, which suited you fine back when they appeared to prove your point, indicate spending was about $200B higher in 8 years than Reagan requested. As usual, you’re moving the goalposts to make up for the fact you were off the mark.