One for Doug69: Bush Disses Reagan

From AmericaBlogspot

Bush disses Reagan

You can always count on George W. Bush to say a stupid thing at the wrong time. The man who spent the weekend showing up late for the Pope and late for his D-Day ceremony, took time off today to diss Reagan in an interview with Tom Brokaw:

"Bush refused Brokaw's invitation to label himself a 'Ronald Reagan Republican.' Bush said he thinks of himself as 'a George W. Republican.'"

It's a small slight that you could easily have overlooked (I did, until my friend Joe pointed it out), but it's an important and telling one.

What could Bush have possibly been thinking? His response is arrogant (is he somehow better than Reagan, or at the very least ashamed or angered by being compared to Reagan?), and downright rude (considering the man just died 12 hours before). As my friend Joe pointed out, there were lots of possible correct answers to the question, including:

1. We are all Ronald Reagan republicans.

2. I like to think there's a bit of Ronald Reagan republican in us all.

Or my suggestions:

3. I should be so lucky as to have the honor of calling myself a Ronald Reagan republican.

4. There is only one Ronald Reagan.

You get the picture.

But for Bush to take a softball question that's intended to give him an easy chance to praise Reagan, say "no," and then turn the question around and making it all about himself? Whatever you personally think of Ronald Reagan, for the current Republican president to respond that way, that's just fucked up. So why did he do it?

1. Because he's a moron. And I mean that seriously. Bush can't think on his feet and probably had no clue he was being fed a softball question, let alone did he have a clue how "normal" people respond to such questions.

2. Because he's an arrogant ass. For all of his failings, Bush thinks pretty highly of himself, and I get the impression he bristles at any suggestion that he's not "the man." Thus, it's quite probable Bush found the question insulting, since HE'S the president and NOT Ronald Reagan. Who is Brokaw, he must have asked himself, to diminish Bush's importance by suggesting he's just copy-catting Reagan, especially after Bush just met with the Pope and then a big ole bunch of European leaders in Normandy? Did Reagan just meet the Pope? Did Reagan catch Saddam? I don't think so.

In the end, this could all be explained by a big case of presidential pique. Bush plans his big adventure to Europe, he's waiting for the big photo op at Normandy where all of America will see him standing side-by-side with all the other big boy leaders of the world (remember: this guy thinks he's another Churchill or Roosevel), and Reagan goes ahead and steals all Bush's thunder by dying and hogging all the news. So rather than being asked about how presidential he looked in Europe, Bush is being asked how he stands up to Ronald Reagan, a "real" Republican God. Big surprise that the boy-who-would-be-president would stomp his feet and respond "me, me, me!"

What a loser.

- John in DC

The NYT also speculates on the comparison between Shrubya and Reagan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/politics/campaign/07REPU.html

Excerpt:

Advisers to Mr. Bush said they had not determined how prominently Mr. Bush should identify his presidency with Mr. Reagan, whether Mr. Reagan's image should be incorporated in Mr. Bush's advertisements and whether Nancy Reagan might appear on Mr. Bush's behalf in the fall.

Some Republicans said the images of a forceful Mr. Reagan giving dramatic speeches on television provided a less-than-welcome contrast with Mr. Bush's own appearances these days, and that it was not in Mr. Bush's interest to encourage such comparisons. That concern was illustrated on Sunday, one Republican said, by televised images of Mr. Reagan's riveting speech in Normandy commemorating D-Day in 1984, followed by Mr. Bush's address at a similar ceremony on Sunday.

"Reagan showed what high stature that a president can have — and my fear is that Bush will look diminished by comparison," said one Republican sympathetic to Mr. Bush, who did not want to be quoted by name criticizing the president.

Another senior Republican expressed concern that by identifying too closely with Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bush risked running a campaign that looked to the past, which this adviser described as a recipe for a loss.

Several Republicans added that Mr. Bush's hopes of enlisting Mrs. Reagan might be complicated by the differences between Mrs. Reagan and Mr. Bush on the issue of embryonic stem-cell research. Mrs. Reagan has been vocal in arguing that the research might help others suffering from Alzheimer's disease, which doctors diagnosed in Mr. Reagan after he left office, while Mr. Bush's policy restricts public financing for this kind of research to existing cell lines.

Mr. Bush's advisers said that Mrs. Reagan — who gave a powerful and well-received speech at the Republican convention in 1996 — would not appear at the party's convention in New York this summer, but they would not say whether that was their desire or Mrs. Reagan's.

>From AmericaBlogspot

>

> Bush disses Reagan

>What could Bush have possibly been thinking?

Holy shit - the hatred for Bush in certain circles is truly pathological - spilling this much fucking ink over a totally inconsequential, off-the-cuff meaningless comment.

What could Bush have been thinking when he declined to call himself a Reagan Republican? How about - he didn't want to crassly exploit and politicize the emotional outpouring over Reagan's death by brazenly wrapping himself in Reagan's dead body and calling himself a "Reagan Republican" before Reagan's body has even been buried.

I have no doubt - none - zero - that had Bush answered: "yes, I am a Reagan Republican," the same screetching moron who wrote this blog would have been condemning Bush for trying to politicize Reagan's death by attaching himself to the adulation Reagan is currently receiving.

I don't really know why Bush answered the way he did, and I don't really think it matters. But this criticism does nicely illustrate that most criticisms of Bush begin with the assumption that he's Satan incarnate, and the proceeds to find evil in whatever he says, no matter the content.

>Holy shit - the hatred for Bush in certain circles is truly

>pathological - spilling this much fucking ink over a totally

>inconsequential, off-the-cuff meaningless comment.

>

This is just too funny for words. If Doug thinks his hero Dubya says something brilliant, he trumpets it everywhere, but if he says something stupid (which is most of the time) Doug labels it inconsequential and meaningless. Always trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Thanks Doug, for not disappointing me.

:+

>Holy shit - the hatred for Bush in certain circles is truly

>pathological - spilling this much fucking ink over a totally

>inconsequential, off-the-cuff meaningless comment.

But, dear Doug, you forget that Bush is HATED in ALL circles! LMFAO, that Shrubya meant his comment as inconsequential and an off-the-mark meaningless comment! Shrubya was just PISSED that he was not the center of attention in the media, as that was his WHOLE point in going to France on the DDAY anniversary to kiss up to the French who virulently opposed his Iraqi policy (remember "freedom fries"?) Just like a little boy cry baby, he let his disappointment in RWR stealing his thunder result in a childish temper tantrum!

>

>What could Bush have been thinking when he declined to call

>himself a Reagan Republican? How about - he didn't want to

>crassly exploit and politicize the emotional outpouring over

>Reagan's death by brazenly wrapping himself in Reagan's dead

>body and calling himself a "Reagan Republican" before Reagan's

>body has even been buried.

And yet, there have been published opinions stating that Reagan's so "timely passing" would be a boost to GWB to ride his very coattails into reelection?

>

>I have no doubt - none - zero - that had Bush answered: "yes,

>I am a Reagan Republican," the same screetching moron who

>wrote this blog would have been condemning Bush for trying to

>politicize Reagan's death by attaching himself to the

>adulation Reagan is currently receiving.

Perhaps, but then again that would have been speculation and an expressed opinion. But GWB's own comments/lack of such, like all his idiotic comments, have left NO DOUBT about his meaning in this case!

>

>I don't really know why Bush answered the way he did, and I

>don't really think it matters. But this criticism does nicely

>illustrate that most criticisms of Bush begin with the

>assumption that he's Satan incarnate, and the proceeds to find

>evil in whatever he says, no matter the content.

Even GWB has NO CLUE why he answered the way that he did, but then again, he is a totally CLUELESS fuck! At least the odious Reagan had alzheimer's as an excuse for his actions, and even in his worst bout of alzheimer's was 10 times the president that Shrubya was on his BEST day!

GWB! WHAT A FUCKING JOKE! Can't even get plastic Nancy to support him!

< Can't even get plastic Nancy to support him!

Ouch! ;-) And I thought I was fiercely partisan. }(

< the assumption that he's Satan incarnate

Wrong. :*

Shrubya's not good enough, he's not smart enough, and doggone it, not enough people like him to even come close to Satan. :+

Satan's da Man! Shrubya's just a boy. Even old GHW while campaigning for him in NH in '00 referred to him as, "this boy." :-)

Sadly, it's an object lesson in why it's good to keep boys away from matches. x(

I don't think President Bush was trying to diss President Reagan. I think he didn't wan't to appear that he is basking in Mr Reagan's political shadow. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told Fox News this past Saturday that President George W. Bush is the heir apparent to the Reagan legacy. He stated that Mr Bush understands conservative values, the power of freedom, the second great conservative tax cutting president, the profound belief that the country is based upon the belief in god. These are Mr Gingrich's words. Now not too long ago David Frost asked Mr Bush who his most influencial leaders are to his approach to the presidency. Mr Bush replied, President Ronald Reagan, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Theodore Roosevelt. Mr Bush described them as men of great strenght and character. In a number of speeches that the President makes, he always invokes the memory of the late President. I think Mr Bush truly does hold Mr Reagan in high regard and that's my opinion.

Rohale

Don't be silly... When has Bush said anything "Brilliant"?

Trix

You know, I HATED Reagan's politics, and I hated his actions/policies, but IMO, he wasn't an innately bad person, as a human being. IMO, he was basically a good person, although misguided, in his actions, that once again, imo, he was too much under the influence of others.

But that FUCKING Nancy, that was one NASTY BITCH!, who's own children disliked her! Her agenda was so easily visible like looking thru plastic, and her own identity and purpose for being was so tightly wrapped up in Ronnie that she was equivalent to a saran wrap condom on Ronnie's manhood, which she bent to her own agenda!

Wake up!, as she was the wedge between Ron and his kids, and she ran the White House, when Ronnie was suffering thru Alzheimer's in the latter years of his second term, all with the assistance of her astrologer! Ronnie was totally pussy whipped - why else do you think he called her "Mommy"?

GWB has PISSED her off, which is why imo, he can HANG IT UP! Ronnie was the one who brought the Republican Party to it's current position of power and Nancy was definitely the power behind the throne. Bye George, and I never thought I would say this, but Thank You, Nancy!