Reagan's only mistake , was selecting Bush as his VP ,, he Whipped the Establishment GOP ,, was One and the Few ,, who could Speak to the American People and Win them over ,, he didn't need Establishment Elites .
I don't think his (CK) comments have to do with him personally agreeing with the Tea Party, but that Reagan would have no problem with the Tea Party. I don't even get what Jeb Bush is saying. Don't speak out about the huge debt? Don't get rid of corrupt cronyism? What exactly is so 'rigid' that he thinks that's even crossing the line.
Jeb had Nothing to say about obama during the past 3 1/2 years, didn't make it to the rallies, didn't make a effort to support the Tea Party Movement or any other movement fighting obama and the democrats.
Time for this Bush to sit down and be quit and get out of the way of brave Americans fighting for America, We are done with progressives, democrats, liberals and the lilly-livered RINO compromisers who are the examples of cowardice.
His days on the sunny beaches have past. Enjoy the vacation.
Tea party Patriot
I stopped watching O'Reilly at least a year ago, his ego is too big and he is not a conservative. I prefer watching the good clips on TRS.
Charles is almost always a great man to watch. Once in a blue moon he gets one wrong. I don't agree that Romney was the only adult in the room, but the people voted for him in the early primaries.
The Kraut gets most things wrong. He was gung ho for Obama in 08, anti-Tea Party in 09 and 10, believes national healthcare is inevitable and thinks a VAT is the way to pay for it.
Other than those minor points, he's right on the money!/
First Mark Levin and now Krauthammer giving accolades to the Tea Party. With Mark it's genuine. However, with Mr. Krauthammer-- it's a little to convenient for me knowing his own personal beliefs, being a Establishment insider and all. Speaking out of both sides of his mouth is a constant. I agree with his assessment of Jeb Bush-- the Bushes never have been or will be-- the Leader of the late Ronald Reagan.
and rigidity is a virtue-- that is the "operative" in words being spoken here. And Yes, Ronald Reagan would "most definitely" be very proud of the Tea party.
This is good stuff by Kruathammer accept he misses the boat on Reagan and social issues: Reagan did nothing on abortion???.....He wrote the book "Abortion and the conscience of a nation" as a sitting President.
At this stage, we need another Bush like we need a second Obama term. NOT! Kraut Hammered him! And shockingly... Was allowed to speak for a whole sentence without being interrupted on O'Reilly!
I would like to know why Jeb Bush is out trying to move people to the center and doing it by comparing the Reagan years to now. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Right off of the top Democrats weren't as far left then. Next up we didn't have the overwhelming no end in sight debt and deficit either. Socialists, communists, and atheists were not out and proud. A lot has changed since then and it requires a much different response and approach. Learn from the wisdom of Reagan but don't mimic him.
Bush's need to stop co-opting Ronald Reagan. RR established the conservative movement and without that no one would of ever known a Bush presidency. I also don't appreciate the Bush's pulling this crap after Reagan has died.
Krauthammer nailed this.
The Bush Monarchy represents the 'New World Order' faction of the RINO party. Not to mention Pro-Islamist. Last thing we need is another Bush in White House although DoorMitt could be their adopted son.
Jeb is definitely a third generation RINO. Papa Bush was a compromise to the RINOs to keep the Republicans united against a socialist president, Carter, that in many ways was as incompetent as his clone, Obama. Carter had to be defeated like Obama must be defeated to preserve our way of life. Deja vu strikes again.
Jeb Bush is like his brother in that he is a RINO to the core. RINOs are the Rockefeller republicans that believed in big business and banks regulating free enterprise. George W was a great example of how that works as his trust in the banking system was definitely misplaced.. Free enterprise DOES work if money reaches the masses in order for small businesses to flourish and create jobs and, in turn, establish the middle class. Reagan would definitely approve of the Tea Party as they are the most informed, educated, hard working small business owners who love their country and the American way of life. What is extremely sad is democrats only know how to take from the producers and give to those who, in many case, undeserving because of their lack of a work ethic. The facts show Reagan Democrats are a sizable percentage of the Tea Party. Without the Tea Party, republicans are the third party. Once again we are faced with the lesser of two evils with the only choice being Romney. We know what Obama can do, his record speaks for itself. Obama, without question, is more incompetent than Jimmy Carter. Throw in the obvious corruption and he could end up negatively effecting our way of life for generations to come.
To republican establishment types, the tea parties are Visigoths massing outside the city gates. To Reagan they would have just been 'the folks'.
Jeb Bush has just revealed why he would NOT have been a good candidate for the GOP. He is a moderate, and moderate is not what this country needs. Moderates represent "business as usual," i.e. the same old, same old that has gotten us into the mess we are in both domestically as well as internationally. So, my opinion is that the Bush era is over. H.W. and W. made worthy contributions, but now we need a leader who will confront the compromises of the past and set our country on course for a return to greatness.
Jeb's a big RINO. I trust his judgement about as much as I trust Carl Rove, which is somewhere around ZERO percent.
Krauthammer supporting the Tea Party??? I guess better later than never. Welcome aboard, Charlie. What took you so long?
Don't be fooled. He just wants your vote for The Family. Starting in late November, the Tea Party goes back to being the Kraut's favorite whipping boys.
He has taken a few beatings over his intransigent RINOism, this past year. Maybe he is waking up, but I don't see how he could ever backtrack on the way he has treated Gov. Palin. He has led the chorus of braindead naysayers. To recant his testimony now would damage his credibility with the people who sign his checks.
I KNOW! It's like the tale of two Charles'. There are times when I think he's absolutely right, and others where he's just another establishment guy. He even admitted that Mittens isn't a good candidate. I disagree with his opinion that he was the best of the weak field, but for him to admit that Mittens doesn't really represent where the GOP is going or should go is kind of a big deal.
Charles, I know you'd be taken to the Fox News woodshed for saying what most common sense conservative republicans already know...Sarah Palin is the closest person/politician we've seen since Reagan. You GOPeunuchs just can't bring yourselves to state the obvious.
Mark Levin, who actually worked for Reagan (while you inexplicably supported and worked for Jimmy Carter, ikes), says Gov. Palin is indeed the closest we have to our 40th president.
Yeah, it's gotten very clear that there's some type of unsaid moratorium on even mentioning Palin's name. In a way it's understandable and not simply about ideology, although at times that plays a big part. Romney is the GOP nominee and I don't believe that Sarah wants to do anything to overshadow that. And she knows she could. Easily. Which is probably why, contrary to what so many expect and at times even whine and complain about, if not downright demand, she hasn't endorsed him or in all likelihood won't actively campaign for him.
Why she avoids even talking about him and his campaign at all and sticks to the lower races.
Unless and until it becomes absolutely necessary.
Of course, you do realize, people, that absolutely necessary will be the GOP and Romney's worst nightmare because then the person "who shall not be named" will have to be talked about as well as the level of power she wields in the "movement" that is the TEA Parties. Both a sitting President and someone who's wanting his job do not want to deal with someone who already has as much political power as they think they should have or will have.
And neither do all the pundits. So they try to pretend she and all she represents doesn't exist. Can't exist. Doesn't make her or all the TEA Party critters following the Mama Grizzly's teachings about citizenship go away, though. They're still around and they will not be ignored forever. Primarily because they're busy little critters. ;-)
Which is a great deal of the reason why the stuff said by Jeb Bush is so laughable and completely and totally, pardon the pun, out in left field. Reagan not like what the TEA Parties are doing? Ha. He would adore it. He would be right in the middle of it.
O'Reilly seems obsessed with compromise. I wonder what compromise he would have chosen in Wisconsin. My guess is that it would have put the state in a worse situation than it is now.
I was unhappy with Krauthammer for particularly slamming the guy I supported and voted for. Santorum did emphasize the moral decay in this country, a very important thing for people to notice; he also regularly talked about some great ideas about the economy and was strong on foreign policy. Not part of a "weak field" in my opinion. I think you are right about the main weakness was Romney & also a weak electorate- those who voted for Romney and additionally, those who didn't bother to vote at all- for a better candidate than Romney.
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom."
"If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws."
(source of quotes: http://www.cancertutor.com/Quotes/Quotes_Presidents.html)
Nibblesyble said.."er-except he was wrong about the weak field, the main weakness was Romney and the weak-willed voters that voted him in!"
You nailed it exactly!
The country has indeed changed since the Reagan era. That's what we're trying to fix dad gum it!!! Listen to C.K. Mr. O cause he knows what he's talking about tonight.
(I was quite surprised to hear just how much airtime Bill gave Charles in this segment. I think it might have been a first for him.)
Reagan is the man at our house.
But unless someone found a way to clone him, we're going to have to find a way to settle for second, or third or fourth ….
….oh, heck……it looks like we're going to have to just get Obama out of the White House and then find someone Conservative for the next go round.
I liked Jeb when he was our governor, but then again, he followed red nosed Lawton Chiles so, almost anything would look good after him.
But I so disagree with Jeb a lot. I think Reagan would have embraced and spoken at Tea Party rallies.
I too liked Jeb Bush and voted for him twice as my governor of Florida. He was known as the country's best governor back then for getting things done. As of what he recently said about the 20Th century's best president..Ronald Reagan. I wholeheartedly disagree!.
Reagan would of been a Tea Party supporter and would of proudly wore the moniker as a Tea Party candidate.
I've said this before and I'll say it now. Reagan was indeed known as the 'great compromiser', but that was back in the day when compromise meant just that. Today, we don't compromise, we capitulate and it's high time to stop capitulating and get this political scene back to the center and right of center. You can't do that from the left of left position we are in right now. Reagan would realize this if he were here today just as the Tea Party realizes it now.
And most of Reagan's compromises were based upon Conservative principles. Not Liberal ones. The Demoncrats came to his side of the argument.
These days, a compromise in the GOP just means that Dems agree to a half-billion dollar "tax cut" and then add $3 billion in gov't spending to the other end and the Repubs just say, "well at least we saved a half-a-billion!" That is not a compromise. It's a bunch of bullsh... well - you know what it is.
I agree Nukeman, back then there were Democrats that actually leaned across the aisle. They weren't ultra liberal/progressive.
More moderate, some were even known as the "Blue Dogs", right?