Will We Be Drug into the Bushes[Again]?

One of these Hasn't Been President...Yet

Here we go again.  It looks to me as though the Bush clan may be preparing to shove another one down our throats.  Of course, there’s nothing certain yet, but the buzz for some time has been that there’s still time for somebody with high name recognition.  That’s been the talking point for several weeks, and people have spent some time speculating about who that would be.  This morning, the Wall Street Journal offered us a clue, as it published an op-ed piece by none other than Jeb Bush, entitled Capitalism and the Right to Rise.  As the party establishment is voicing worries about the rise of Ron Paul, and the uninspiring candidacy of Mitt Romney, here comes Jeb Bush?  If you wonder if this is the Bush clan’s attempt to retain control of the GOP, you might ask if they’ve ever been in danger of losing it.  There’s nothing novel in it, but what was interesting is that Rush Limbaugh read it in the first hour of his show on Monday, fairly gushing over it.

Remember when we were told George W. Bush was more conservative than his father, and then as he was being revealed to be nothing more than another squishy moderate, people began to say “Well, at least Jeb Bush in Florida is a real conservative?”  Remember?  While I may well be jumping the gun, and there’s a fair chance neither Jeb Bush nor anybody with deeper Bush-clan ties will  have anything to do with this election, remember that Karl Rove is still out there, and he’s been assumed by many to be pushing Mitt Romney.  I’ve never been certain about it, and in fact, I told you some time ago that he might well be acting on behalf of somebody else.  It could well be we’ll see somebody else entirely, but whether it’s Jeb, or another Bush crony, it may begin just after the Iowa caucus, and the victor may offer the excuse.

“Save us from Ron Paul’s foreign policy!”  “Save us from Mitt Romney’s uninspiring schtick!”  “Save us from Newt Gingrich!”  Ultimately, however, the offer will be to “Save us from Barack Obama!”  That’s the plea some are hoping will prompt some as-yet undetermined white knight into the race, but I can promise you, sure as I’m sitting here: IF, and only IF Jeb Bush enters this race, or another Bush crony tries to enter using the same justification, I will consider the fix to have been in these last eleven months, and I will immediately endorse Ron Paul, because I would vote for anybody before I vote for another Bush or frankly, even another Bush crony.  No more Karl Rove flunkies.  No more Bush family presidencies, directly or indirectly, period.  I have no interest in continuing the Bush dynasty, either by virtue of another Bush, or by one of their cronies.  It’s simply not acceptable, and I don’t believe in political dynasties, and I don’t think America should have any sort of so-called ‘royalty,’ and there is nothing about the Bush clan that makes them better suited to lead the American people, or steer our government.

Enough is enough. I don’t want to hear all the excuses they will throw around.  I don’t care if he writes a thousand op-eds suggesting he is an economic libertarian and a fiscal conservative.  I don’t believe them.  I now consider that entire family indecently unreliable, and for the rest of you who may not have figured it out, I will tell you that when George H.W. Bush told you “Read my lips,” and you didn’t recognize the dishonesty when in 1990, he went along with Democrats and broke his pledge, worsening and deepening what should have been a minor recession, you deserve to lose every election from here to eternity. In 2000, when George W. Bush was telling you he was a “compassionate conservative,”  I knew he was lying because what he really meant was “kinder, gentler,” just like his old man. Welfare reform? Never, but if you like Amnesty and “Immigration Reform,” then this is the perfect family for you.  “Don’t worry,” they’ll assure you, “he’s even been to Tea Party Candidate fundraisers.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will admit to you now that I have been fearing this moment for some time, because I believe the Bush clan still maintains a strangle-hold on much of the GOP,  and when they come with a white knight to “rescue” the Republican Party from Ron Paul, or Newt Gingrich, or any of the other candidates,  there are some conservatives and Tea Party patriots who may well fall for it.   If they do, I will mark the date on the calendar, and from now until eternity, every time conservatives and Tea Party folk complain that they’re being undercut by their own president[again], like so many did from 2002-2008, I am going to laugh, but I will not feel any joy.  .  You’ve seen two rounds of what the Bush clan has to offer.  You’ve had more than twenty years of their domination of the Republican party.  If you want more of that, so be it, but don’t blame me, and don’t blame conservatism when yet another Bush claims that mantle before taking it down in flames along with our nation.  They are the quintessential big-government Republicans, and if you send another one to Washington DC, you may lose more than control of Congress this time.  You may lose your country.

Advertisements
Leave a comment ?

12 Responses to Will We Be Drug into the Bushes[Again]?

  1. carlirwin12 says:

    with the Bush presidents we have had war, not one war but more than a decade of wars and conflicts. They were not good presidents and they set the stage for the crap we are going through now. I know people will come on and point out how they kept us safe, which is bull crap, the history will show that the Bush`s and Clinton Presidency`s have degraded this country to the level it is now. The short of it is, after the Reagan era this country has been under attack from its own political class unlike anything we have seen. The very first gulf war, you have to ask why did we go to war? What was all that military aide for? to Saudia Arabia and other nations if they are not going to defend themselves? why did we have to free Kuwait? and it took the destruction of the twin towers to suddenly make them realize Iraq was a threat, which they were not. It has been one bad decision after another and our brave young men and woman have paid with their blood. where we should fight we don`t and where we have no business being there we are. Defend them if you want, but they are incompetent boobs. Don`t think so? well hows things going then?

  2. Craig Smith says:

    I find your hate for the Bush's to be in poor taste and quite frankly is a huge turn off in reading your column. I would rather have Jeb Bush in the oval office than the poor excuse sitting there now. Obama has ties to terrorists, Muslim fanatics and financiers whom are all corrupt.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      I don't "hate" anybody. I simply don't want another Bush president, for all the reasons I've detailed, namely: They're not conservatives.

      If that's "in poor taste" where you're concerned, good luck to you, because there is a large contingent of republicans who feel as I do. Have a nice day!

      • just-a-guy says:

        personally, I think its a tempest in a teapot…

        Mark, your point that Anybody but Bush is what got us Obama in the first place is valid enough, I might not be so quick to denegrate the service of GW, it was some tough times, and hard decisions had to be made. The same problem his pops had/ losing control of congress exagerated the impact of some of his weaker decisions, but only hindsight is 20/20

        Have a link might sooth your nerves about the 'direction' the american people are moving in, and lesson your fears about the ability of the 'Republican Establishment' to dictate that direction.
        http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2011/

        These boots on the ground efforts, and SP's top down attention grabbing, focus shifting demands for sudden, and relentless reform can by immersion calm the jitteryness caused by what looks like indecision via the MSM prism on current political processes…remember they report a close race to sell papers…what is really going on can be quite different.

        What is paramount at the top of the ticket is perhaps important
        more to the candidates than to the electorate- who will get
        what they vote for, irregardless

        -mchill/tampa

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Just-a-guy, I don't besmirch what Bush did in response to 9/11. Let's get that straight. I can even forgive him on the basis of imperfect information in the case of Iraq. What I can't forgive is that once Saddam was in custody, we didn't pull out and go home, mission accomplished. Instead, we stayed there for 7 years of what amounted to nation-building at a tremendous cost in blood and treasure. I can't forgive his liberal domestic agenda either.

          The GOP establishment may not dictate everything, but they certainly may dictate the Presidential ticket again, one way or the other. That article is heartening, but it does little to help curb the feeling that on the presidential stage, I'm about to get the shaft.

          The truth of GW is that he lost control of the congress in the '06 elections precisely because he went squish. The Democrats used all of his outrageous spending against him in the campaign, and that was enough to undo the Congress. Truth is, they went along with his big-spending, but it cost them the majority. OF course, I'm well aware that Congressional democrats' only REAL complaint with the spending is that they wanted more, but that's a side issue.

          Mark

      • SeanStLouis says:

        George W Bush had a 25% approval rating towards the end of his second term. This is worse than Obama's all-time low. This alone makes your argument for Jeb pretty weak, Craig.

        And here's why I say that:

        Seeing that the Bush family is widely viewed as complicit with the neoconservative/globalist agenda I highly doubt that Jeb, as a candidate, would be viewed any differently.

        As I commented in Mark's article on Bill Kristol…the neoconservative cabal has been exposed for what it is and has, for the most part, been run out of Washington with it's tail between it's legs. Many of them have found refuge at Fox News as political analysts and commentators (I view Fox News as the neoconservative "Alamo", if you please).

        I do understand your concern though, Mark. We could see some desperate maneuvers by the GOP in this election.

      • I agree with you Mark…there was a lot of things I liked about Bush 43, but his big spending ways and the TARP was all on him. I don't want another Bush. NO WAY. I just hope and pray that Americans, TeaPartiers have their heads screwed on straight, because we do not need Bush III.

      • Dave says:

        Mark, as usual, great article. When George H.W. Bush won the presidency after Ronald Reagan, as I was still a young man and a junior naval officer. I thought mistakenly thought he would have much the same charater as President Reagan. Not so. He was not one tenth the man Reagan was. When G.W. Bush was elected, after 8 years of Clinton, I again thought that we would get the country back on track and moving in the right direction. I started to question Bush when he bypassed the rule of law concerning reservists that were called to active duty after 9/11 that were injured in order to save money. Then three times he claimed he was going to beef up the border with troops and he lied each time. Then came his arrogant stance on the amnesty bill and the persecution of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Campien at his direction. That made me very angry. The final straw was TARP. After Bush said we had to abandon free market principles in order to save it, I had been duped from the beginning. The Bush's are a NWO family. I don't think any real conservative or libertarian has any doubt of that. As I have posted before, the american public is waking up to the lies we have been fed for so long and want our country back.

  3. mellow says:

    the only reason bush had a low rating when he left office is because the press hated him and beat the drum against him constantly, i would rather have gb back or another bush who love this country to a a" american hating MUSLIM as presient any time. if this muslim is reelected because the reps cannot put a good canidate for the american people to elect then we can kiss america as we know it goodby and say hello to muslim rule and sharia laaw

    • Dave says:

      Bush wasn't hated because of the MSM. He was hated because he allowed the GOP congress to spend like Democrats, and failed to secure our borders as he had promised at least three times. He failed to get us out of Iraq after our "mission accomplished." He drove the deficit and the debt up and signed off on TARP. We should have had a clue when he jumped into bed with Ted Kennedy on "no child left behind."

  4. Pat Ross says:

    Political dynasties are the unrecognized fear that most Americans sense just as easily as they sense the dangers of religious rule as the resistance of the Revolution of their founders.

    Either can ruin a good country committed to political freedom, and freedom of expression. Capturing the flag by any source is America's greatest danger to democracy.

    America's freedom shall always depend upon independence from those tendencies toward political concrete.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks: