Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush pushed for the Republican Party to transform itself into a party of “21st century reformers” in a speech to students last night at George Washington University.
Bush criticized Republicans for giving the impression that the GOP is the “party of no.” He told the group that Republicans are often “too nostalgic” and that the party needs to be more “forward looking” in order to regain national success. Bush reminded the audience that voter demographics are changing and called for the party to become more “youthful” and to abandon their image as “the old white guy party.” “Tone matters,” Bush said, “in twenty or so years our country will have a minority majority.”
But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the party must move towards the center. When asked by a student if the party platform needed to become more moderate on social issues, Bush replied, “no.” Rather, he stressed that Republicans “need to apply conservative principles to 21st century problems.” Emphasizing “economic prosperity” is an issue which he believes can both unite conservatives from all wings of the party and attract new voters. Bush told the crowd that President Obama was turning the country into a European socialist state and killing innovation.
The former governor went on to say that the GOP must be the “limited but effective government party,” and stressed, there is no such thing as “big government conservatism.” Bush pointed to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels as an accomplished fiscally responsible politician, and urged Republicans to follow his example.
When asked for actual policies Republicans should be pushing, Bush called for “simpler and lower taxes,” and suggested a committee similar to Reagan’s Grace Commission to investigate and reduce government waste.
The students NewMajority spoke with were impressed with Governor Bush. One student wished that, “he would run for President in 2012.” A College Republican asserted that “Bush is a great leader for the Republican Party, he is a good ideas man, and he’s like Newt Gingrich, a powerful man behind the scenes.” Another student told Frum Forum that “Jeb seems a lot smarter than W., much more poised and articulate, I wish he was the Bush that achieved the presidency.”
34 responses so far
1 midcon // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Unfortunately Jeb’s name is Bush and just as unfortunately he is saddled with the Republican label. I am sure the binary right will chatise him for his remarks. Moderate Republican is an oxymoron, which is why the Republicans are down to 19% of the electorate and falling.
2 balconesfault // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:31 pm
“Jeb seems a lot smarter than W., much more poised and articulate, I wish he was the Bush that achieved the presidency.”
Pretty much he, and every other voter in the US outside of perhaps the Texas GOP and the Cheney family.
3 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:35 pm
……….Jeb is a bit of joke…….the party needs to be more forward looking……needs to avoid being labelled the party of NO……….Questioner; does this mean we have to move to the center………ABSOLUTELY NOT!……..Questioner: what should our policy be……..LOWER TAXES!
4 LFC // Oct 22, 2009 at 3:45 pm
When asked for actual policies Republicans should be pushing, Bush called for “simpler and lower taxes,” and suggested a committee similar to Reagan’s Grace Commission to investigate and reduce government waste.
GONG! I call bulls***. He wants to cut taxes and cut waste. (Funny, I just posted on another thread that the term “cut waste” is bull.) And to cut waste, he suggests a committee, political speak for “I refuse to commit to a position”.
Once again, a complete and total avoidance of committing to the hard choices.
Mr. Bush: Are you willing to cut the defense budget? If so, by how much and in what areas?
Mr. Bush: Are you supporting cuts to Social Security or Medicare benefits? If so, do you at least pledge to pay back the outstanding Social Security debt?
5 Cforchange // Oct 22, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Jeb is beyond correct about the negativity – the shrillness has got to go. But isn’t the shrillness really about social issues – the other Republicans(non base) and everyone who has turned Indie are turned off by the intrusion in personal decision making not to mention how these issues limit the selection of a candidate. Then there’s the chronic fallout, the comedic side as our elected leadership profess behavioral guidelines but can’t follow their own words. How can the GOP continue to impair candidate selection to satisfy the “litmus” test.
In general the GOP has a huge hurdle to pass to prove that they are capable of Jeb’s big suggestion for the ideal limited effective government. Majority voters will not be easily persauded to believe this. Since plenty are not paying taxes because they are out of work – they don’t mind government now and hope that government is doing something to restore opportunity and employment. This will not resolve itself soon.
For many parts of the country, lacking employment is not new and simply can not be pinned on Obama. The American job and educating or training our dropout student population will be the issue of the decade. For the GOP never to focus directly here will be a big mistake.
6 Jeb Bush to GOP: Stop being the “Party of No” « GW YAF // Oct 22, 2009 at 7:38 pm
[...] Sam Theodosopoulos recap’s Jeb Bush’s address at GW last Wednesday. It can be viewed here Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Why Jeb Bush Might Run for the [...]
7 Jeb Bush to GOP: “Stop Being the Party of No” | thelobbyist // Oct 22, 2009 at 7:45 pm
[...] The Following was originally published and is the sole property of NewMajority.com [...]
8 ltoro1 // Oct 22, 2009 at 7:51 pm
lfc, while cutting waste usually is a bs line both Democrats and Republicans use, shouldn’t it be goal. My experience with government is that it is still in the Industrial Age while the rest of the nation is in the Information Age.
Also, do you really think the current tax code makes any sense?
9 sinz54 // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:11 pm
ltoro1:
That wouldn’t cut a fraction of the budget.
The expenditures on Social Security and Medicare are the biggest portion of the budget; and the overhead and waste in those programs is probably less than most other programs.
The real reason the cost of SS and Medicare keep rising is that they were created at a time when life expectancy was much lower. The reason FDR set the retirement age at 65 in the 1930s, was that 65 was the average life expectancy back then. It was assumed that half of Americans wouldn’t live long enough to collect SS!
Today, the average life expectancy is pushing 80. And many folks live till they’re 90. That means that they’re retiring at age 65 and drawing SS and Medicare benefits for 25 years, which is just unsustainable.
The ONLY sensible answer is to raise the retirement age to 70.
ltoro1:
It sure does make sense to politicians.
10 sinz54 // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:17 pm
I’ve stated my main recommendation for the GOP several times already on this NG:
The GOP must finally abandon Rove’s “Red States plus Ohio” playbook, and adopt a true 50 state strategy aimed at winning in as many states as possible, Blue as well as Red. And they have to get their base to accept that.
To win in Blue States, the GOP will necessarily have to run candidates there that are considerably more moderate than the Red State stalwarts. Even RedState.com recognizes that a hard-right Republican can’t win in Vermont, Maine, Washington State, or Oregon (though right now they’re OK with just writing off those states).
It was the Dems’ adoption of Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy that impelled them to run moderate “Blue Dog Dem” and “Fighting Dem” candidates in localities that were traditionally considered Republican strongholds. It worked. That’s how the Dems won 60 seats in the Senate.
The GOP must copy that: running “Moderate Republican” candidates in Blue States.
11 rbottoms // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:48 pm
The students also mentioned that they had no intention of ever joining the Army or wearing the uniform of their country. “That’s for suckers and people from the South,” said Julie Whitebread.
12 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Ifc wrote: “GONG! I call bulls***. He wants to cut taxes and cut waste. (Funny, I just posted on another thread that the term “cut waste” is bull.) And to cut waste, he suggests a committee, political speak for “I refuse to commit to a position”.”
This is absolutely right, but then why don’t more GOPers support Obama’s proposed $500 billion cuts to Medicare?
13 MFarmer // Oct 22, 2009 at 9:37 pm
GOP to Jeb Bush — Do something productive or STFU.
14 Chekote // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:11 pm
NO MORE BUSHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15 phesoge // Oct 22, 2009 at 11:40 pm
The Republican PArty Neeeds to first radically change their insane NEO CON foreign policy.
16 ltoro1 // Oct 22, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Sinze, you’re correct that cutting the waste out of the budget won’t really get us where we need to be, but I think we should still do it. You’re also right, the tax code is great for politicians; however, as a CPA (although not a tax accountant) it’s the biggest piece of crap known to mankind.
17 johnmarzan // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:17 am
bush-condi 2012!
18 johnmarzan // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:29 am
if liberal rudy giuliani can get the support of teleevangelist pat robertson, anything is possible in the repub party.
19 balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:28 am
Sinze, you’re correct that cutting the waste out of the budget won’t really get us where we need to be, but I think we should still do it. You’re also right, the tax code is great for politicians; however, as a CPA (although not a tax accountant) it’s the biggest piece of crap known to mankind.
The problem isn’t that the tax code is currently screwed up.
The problem is that you can go through and clean it up significantly … and in no time at all politicians will make it complicated again.
That’s because we have this weird mindset in America – it is bad if government subsidizes some behavior by going out and directly paying for a part of it … but it’s fine if government subsidizes behavior by giving a tax rebate/credit/deduction for it.
And all those rebate/credit/deductions have to get written into the tax code.
Since we’re not going to get Congress to want to quit subsidizing a wide range of behavorial changes anytime soon … for businesses and individuals … then we either ban them screwing with the tax code to do it, making them pass appropriations in the light of day to pay for what they want, or we accept that we’ll always have a ridiculously complex tax code.
20 balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:31 am
johnmarzan: if
liberalshameless self-promoter and profiteer rudy giuliani can get the support ofteleevangelistshameless self-promoter and profiteer pat robertson, anything is possible in the repub party.Fixed.
21 balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:33 am
huh … fun with html. let’s try that again
johnmarzan: if
liberalshameless self-promoter and profiteer rudy giuliani can get the support ofteleevangelistshameless self-promoter and profiteer pat robertson, anything is possible in the repub party.Fixed?
22 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:37 am
sinz54 // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:17 pm
“The GOP must finally abandon Rove’s “Red States plus Ohio” playbook”
………While theoretically there’s nothing to disagree with in what you suggest, it’s totally unrealistic. The problem is you’re ignoring societal shifts that have taken place and the far right ideology that is now deeply implanted in the Republican DNA and cannot be jettisoned without a civil war. The factions are simply too strong. Along with the extremity of the opinions has also come a rigidity of outlook that precludes revisiting any of these ideas. That’s obvious from your own comments and those of many others here. The results are going to play out over the next few years as the GOP gets increasingly marginalized. Ultimately they’ll come to their senses and tack back to the middle but it’s going to take some time.
23 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:45 am
balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:28 am
“Sinze, you’re correct that cutting the waste out of the budget won’t really get us where we need to be, but I think we should still do it. You’re also right, the tax code is great for politicians; however, as a CPA (although not a tax accountant) it’s the biggest piece of crap known to mankind.”
………..The current tax code is largely the consequence of Republican (and some Democratic)/special interest gerrymandering that’s been going on for since the early 80’s……….I was entirely in sympathy with Reagan’s roll back of top rates which were ridiculous but the whole process has gone too far with the conseqence that “effective rates” are at levels not seen for sixty years……..the code for ordinary filers is much more complicated that it was in seventies and the corporate code is mind boggling.
24 sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:45 am
balconesfault:
Another way is to go towards a Value Added Tax (VAT) or transaction tax, to replace at least part of the income tax. And I would combine it with a dramatic cut in the capital gains tax for long-term capital gains.
Since most transactions in America are private (and privacy laws even guarantee privacy), it would be MUCH harder for Congress to finagle a transaction tax or VAT. Any finagling would be instantly visible, the moment you purchased something at a supermarket or Wal-mart.
And it would force politicians to put their money where their mouth is on the central question: Americans consuming too much stuff on time with credit cards and mortgages; and excessive speculation in the credit markets. A VAT would tax consumption rather than investment income as we tax now. A transaction tax would fall most heavily on day-traders and speculators who churn their portfolios with lots of buying and selling. Long-term investors like Warren Buffett or 529 plans would be virtually unaffected.
If we levied a VAT and transaction tax, and combined it with a cut in the capital gains tax, society would be saying that investment that produces long-term capital gains is more important to society than consumption or day-trading. That’s the attitude the Chinese have–and it’s worked well for them.
25 steelyblades // Oct 23, 2009 at 4:09 pm
It’s nice that Jeb Bush thinks the GOP needs to be more than the “Party of No.” But I don’t see what he offers in terms of a specific vision for this new Republican Party. To me the question is really what do Republicans want to stand for? So much of the so-called “conservative” agenda is at odds with itself. It makes the debate fun to watch, but it also ensures it’s going to play out for quite a while before a viable set of positions emerges behind new leadership. In any case, I doubt it will be Jeb Bush who is the standard bearer of the future Republican Party.
26 ltoro1 // Oct 23, 2009 at 7:44 pm
ireign, for what it’s worth Jeb Bush was a pretty popular governor throuhgout his 2 terms, even when GWB’s approval ratings were in the tank.
27 ltoro1 // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:47 pm
ireign, I will take you at your word that his speach was empty rhetoric since I have not listened to it. While he was targeted by Democrats for defeat in 2002, it Bill McBride never came close to winning. Also, even though GWB had high approval ratings at the time, I really don’t think any help from him was needed. Finally, he was polling in the 60s at the end of his term in ‘06 so you could argue that he has a solid track record he could either run for office on or advocate policy from.
28 ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 9:28 am
26 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 7:35 pm
“The GOP must finally abandon Rove’s “Red States plus Ohio” playbook”
“That is nonesense. Sinz you keep repeating this but Rove would have liked to win all 50 states. Unfortunately, the country was so divided that there was a limited number of states in play. Rove was and is by all accounts a pragmatic strategist.”
………..Unfortunately, water runs downhill……..unfortunately, there’s such a thing as gravity……….and after all Rove has been such a huge success in positioning the GOP as a majority party……his works are all around us
“you actually have to back it up with polling data demonstrating that certain policies have popular support (something that OttoBS does not understand).”
…………How silly of me
29 sinz54 // Oct 24, 2009 at 12:14 pm
ireign:
Obviously. But that wasn’t his strategy .
First, like any good strategist of either party, Rove started by counting which states were staunchly Repub and which ones were staunchly Dem. Then Rove also assumed that the Independent vote would divide fairly evenly between the Dem and the Repub candidates, in the key swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Then those states would be won by whichever party mobilized its base the best.
The result was two narrow election victories in 2000 and 2004.
The last time the GOP had anything like a real national mandate was 1994, with the Gingrich takeover of Congress. Ever since, the GOP’s national appeal has been shrinking.
30 Jeb Bush To GOP – Stop Being The Party Of “No” | QandO // Oct 24, 2009 at 2:53 pm
[...] I hear this all the time, and it is nonsense. It gives credence to opposition propaganda [...]
31 Jeb Bush To GOP – Stop Being The Party Of “No” | Financial and Economic news // Oct 25, 2009 at 4:40 am
[...] I hear this all the time, and it is nonsense. It gives credence to opposition propaganda [...]
32 Jeb Bush To GOP – Stop Being The Party Of “No” | Financial and Economic news // Oct 25, 2009 at 4:40 am
[...] I hear this all the time, and it is nonsense. It gives credence to opposition propaganda [...]
33 Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Jeb Bush: GOP Can’t Just Be The Party Of No // Oct 25, 2009 at 8:35 am
[...] former Governor of Florida has some advice for the Republican Party: Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush pushed for the Republican Party to transform itself into a party [...]
34 DFL // Oct 27, 2009 at 9:32 am
No. The Democrats won big victories as the Party of No in 1958, 1974, 1982, 1986 and 2006. The Republicans did the same in 1966 and 1994. It is the time for the Demcorats to offer new ideas and the Republicans to fight them. The Republicans have been discredited by George W. Bush; it is time for the Democrats to enjoy the agony of governing.
You must log in to post a comment.