Bush: Illegal immigration an “act of love,” not a felony

posted at 9:21 am on April 7, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

“I’m going to say this, and it’ll be on tape,” former Florida Governor Jeb Bush told an audience at his father’s presidential library this weekend, adding with a shrug, “So be it.” Asked about immigration policy at the forum, Bush responded that the US has to implement a system to find illegal immigrants and ask them to leave, along with better border controls, but that we should not overreact to illegal immigration when it occurs. It’s “an act of love,” Bush argued, “not a felony”:

On immigration, he said that many of those who illegally come to the United States do so out of an “act of love” for their families and should be treated differently than people who illegally cross U.S. borders or overstay visas. He said that a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate last year made “a good effort” at proposing ways to ensure that people overstaying visas leave the country.

“A great country ought to know where those folks are and politely ask them to leave,” he said, adding later that properly targeting people who overstay visas “would restore people’s confidence” in the nation’s immigration system.

But most people who illegally enter the United States do so “because they couldn’t come legally, they come to our country because their families — the dad who loved their children — was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table,” Bush said. “And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family. I honestly think that that is a different kind of crime that there should be a price paid, but it shouldn’t rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families.”

The proposal last year did make a good effort at finding a middle ground. The problem wasn’t the bill as much as it was who it trusted to enforce it. The problem for those supporting a staged system of comprehensive immigration reform is the Obama administration, which has proven its disregard for statutory law in ObamaCare — the bill it promoted — especially when it comes to statutory deadlines and enforcement. If we can’t trust this White House to stick with deadlines for mandates it really wants, how can we trust it to stick with the phased-in approach to normalization based on objective border- and visa-security metrics, even if those involve Congressional approval? After all, the employer mandates and IRS penalties were hard-wired into the ObamaCare statute, and Obama had no problem using his phone and his pen to ignore those.

Republicans aren’t going to get border and visa reform without coming up with ways to normalize those who have lived in the US for a significant period of time, and Democrats won’t get the latter without the former — unless Obama is still President when reform passes. That’s the issue even for those who support a compromise. The GOP trusted Democrats in 1986 when there was a lot more reason to do so, and got stiffed on the border and visa reforms. They’re not going to offer that level of trust with an executive branch that has demonstrated its untrustworthiness repeatedly over the last four years on ObamaCare, and Barack Obama’s declared ambitions to govern through EOs and regulation while bypassing Congress.

Bush says he will decide on whether to run for President by the end of the year, which means that … he’s just like everyone else in that regard. Whether he chooses to run depends on whether he can try running a different kind of campaign:

In a rambling answer that suggested he has given serious thought to the prospects of running for a job once held by his father and brother, Bush said he would decide whether to run for president by the end of this year. He appeared to bemoan the thought of having to spend time attending political cattle calls in early-primary states, suggesting that some candidates might devote too much time to questions such as, “How am I going to get to win the Muscatine Pork Roast straw poll, or something like that.”

Bush said he ultimately would base his decision on whether a candidate can “run with a hopeful, optimistic message, hopefully with enough detail to give people a sense that it’s not just idle words and not get back into the vortex of the mud fight.”

Good luck on that score.  The last innovator in a presidential primary was Rudy Giuliani, who thought he could skip over some of the traditional “here and now” states to win big in Bush’s Florida backyard, and that … didn’t work out so well.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Meow, a tune for you, Bushfire

Bmore on April 7, 2014 at 2:59 PM

I just wonder if the millions of unemployed Americans agree it’s an “act of love” instead of a “felony”.

Squiggy on April 7, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Ever notice how the loudest amnesty pimps are always rich people? People like the Obamas, Bushes, Clintons, Gateses, Zuckerbergs, Slims, etc. People who know they will never have to live in neighborhoods overrun with foreign gangs, or send their children to public schools with over-crowded classrooms in which the teacher can’t pay attention to their kid because she’s too busy trying to interpret a remedial lesson into Spanish for all the below-grade-level-performing, non-English-speaking illegal kids. People who know they’ll never have to wait 10 hours in an ER before they are seen by a doctor, because all the ER physicians are so busy providing “free” health care to dozens of illegal aliens injured at their off-the-books jobs, or about to drop their “anchor babies” so they can qualify for expedited visas and even more welfare benefits.

No, these self-righteous amnesty pimps all live in gated or otherwise inaccessible wealthy enclaves, safely protected from the havoc and violence their stupid policies wreak on the rest of us. Their wealth and privileged status insulates them from having to experience the consequences of their idiocy. I’d like to see a few of them forced to live in East L.A. or South Phoenix for a few years, without the benefit of their millions of dollars, or their Secret Service protection, or their gold-plated, taxpayer-funded healthcare plans. I bet at the end of that time (if they survived it), they’d be talking about something other than “acts of love.” Lousy hypocrites.

AZCoyote on April 7, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Listen to your Mother, Jeb. Do us all a favor, don’t run and shut up. Hopefully, we are sorta looking for a law abiding president this time. I hope that’s not asking too much for America.

mobydutch on April 7, 2014 at 3:24 PM

I wonder if Jebbie thinks it would be an act of love if somebody robbed his wife or mother at gun point and stole their wedding rings so they could feed their kids?

There is just as much harm in these illegals taking away poor Americans jobs then taking away some piece of jewelry from a rich person. Maybe more.

KMav on April 7, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Now, do you think Romney’s loss will be viewed as an indicator that the 2016 (R) candidate needs to be
 
1) more conservative or
 
2) more liberal?
 
rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 1:54 PM

 
Sorry, roger; I tend to get carried away. I didn’t answer your question specifically, but only in a roundabout way. But in a way you are asking an unfair question the second time. It’s entirely too narrow: either this or that, when there are so many shades, at least in today’s politics.
 
But, since I believe so deeply that amnesty will kill this country, I would run a candidate who would be able to convince people of the gravity of the issue. And it wouldn’t matter WHICH he/she was, conservative or liberal (although I can’t imagine a liberal espousing a hard line on amnesty). So, if I could find a candidate with the resolve and thunder of a Gingrich, but with a little more integrity, one who couldn’t be bought of by the illegals as he has been, I would run a candidate like that.
 
memyselfni on April 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM

 
Thanks. We’re getting closer, and I apologize if it seemed like a different question the second time. It was mostly copy/pasted from the first attempt since the premise was established. It wasn’t meant to be a trick.
 
And as much as I appreciate the insight specific to your personal choices, remember the original question:
 

Now, do you think that the GOP and major donors…

 
We’re speculating on what the big guns who will give us the candidates will feel they need to present to all voters nationwide with an eye on winning the presidency, not what you or I personally support in a candidate.
 
So…
 
Recognizing that Romney lost to the leftist Obama, do you think THEY believe the (R) candidate in 2016 needs to be
 
1) more conservative or
 
2) more liberal
 
than Romney?

rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Oh, and further, rogerb: You seem to think that the Republicans ought to run either a conservative or “liberal” based on the fact that Romney COULDN’T win with the self-deportation stand. It isn’t that Romney couldn’t win. He could have, if only the “pure” conservatives hadn’t stayed home. Romney probably was so strong on self-deportation because he felt he would get crossover votes from those in other parties sick of the nasty foreign invaders, and that he could COUNT ON the Republican vote.

There are many reports that bear out that Romney carried Independents in the battleground states, but that the Republican vote came up short. Even if he didn’t have great charisma and isn’t the world’s best campaigner (Obama is/was?), don’t you think that assuming it was his fault that spoiled “pure” conservatives, whose candidates were hardly more conservative than Romney, sat on their rear ends at home is a little ridiculous. Can’t people read and compare what candidates are saying? I know there are a lot of low information voters out there, but conservative Republicans should know better.

memyselfni on April 7, 2014 at 3:46 PM

3m ago
President Obama at swearing-in of new Small Business Administration chief Maria Contreras Sweet: She ‘understands small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy’ – @markknoller

Just annex the United Debts of America to Mexico.

Murphy9 on April 7, 2014 at 3:49 PM

memyselfni on April 7, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Rather than “conservatives staying home,” have you considered the fact that after spending 6+ years of his live and tens of millions of his personal fortune, Mitt Romney assembled the second (to McCain) most incompetent team in U.S. political history?

Stu Stevens, “Mr. Etch-A-Sketch,” Mike Murphy, Kevin Madden, Alex Castellanos, Andrea Saul to name but a few. These people have more losses than the 2013 Houston Astros. The only positive thing is that Steve Schmidt and Mark and Nicolle Wallace weren’t part of the fiasco.

Then, there’s ORCA – the get out the vote operation that was a complete failure. If you want to point s finger, check out “Mr. Goodhair.”

bw222 on April 7, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Oh, and further, rogerb: You seem to think that the Republicans ought to run either a conservative or “liberal” based on the fact that Romney COULDN’T win with the self-deportation stand. It isn’t that Romney couldn’t win. He could have, if only the “pure” conservatives hadn’t stayed home.

 
You make a great point and I don’t disagree with you in the least. He couldn’t get the votes he needed to beat Obama. I agree entirely.
 
(FWIW, that’s why I keep asking my question.)
 

Romney probably was so strong on self-deportation because he felt he would get crossover votes from those in other parties sick of the nasty foreign invaders, and that he could COUNT ON the Republican vote.
 
There are many reports that bear out that Romney carried Independents in the battleground states, but that the Republican vote came up short. Even if he didn’t have great charisma and isn’t the world’s best campaigner (Obama is/was?), don’t you think that assuming it was his fault that spoiled “pure” conservatives, whose candidates were hardly more conservative than Romney, sat on their rear ends at home is a little ridiculous.

 
Again, we don’t disagree. He couldn’t get people to vote for him. I know. We’ve established it.
 

Can’t people read and compare what candidates are saying? I know there are a lot of low information voters out there, but conservative Republicans should know better.
 
memyselfni on April 7, 2014 at 3:46 PM

 
A fine post, and thanks.
 
Would you mind fielding my more conservative/more liberal question, please?

rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 4:05 PM

“Acto de amor” dice Jeb Bush. Lo hipocrita, que es’.

MaiDee on April 7, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Jeb Bush could win it. But more likely to see Rand-Rubio in the WH in 2017.
None of the hardcore conservatives like to admit it but they need the money that Jeb can generate through his contacts. All will be irritated at the kissing of the Bush ring by the GOP suitors — even Cruz will bow.
But kiss the ring they will.

B.A. Moderate on April 7, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Old Jeb just jumped off my consideration wagon. I liked the other two, but Jeb comes down on the wrong side of almost everything.

BTW…I was pretty sure illegal immigration was a felony. Why would it not be?

stacman on April 7, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Speaking of staunch conservatives…
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/vance-mcallister-video-kissing-staffer-105435.html

B.A. Moderate on April 7, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Jeb Bush could win it. But more likely to see Rand-Rubio in the WH in 2017.

B.A. Moderate on April 7, 2014 at 4:19 PM

And I can win the Powerball jackpot this week.

bw222 on April 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM

By the same logic (i.e. none)rape is just an act of love. Yeah, enough Bushes, thanks.

Ay Uaxe on April 7, 2014 at 4:31 PM

bw222 on April 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Rand has the conservative woman vote locked up solid! Grrrr!

B.A. Moderate on April 7, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Hey Jeb, California went broke with all that love crap and now doesn’t have the tax base to pump more love into their problem, what do you suggest to remedy their problem?

mixplix on April 7, 2014 at 4:31 PM

rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 3:41 PM

rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Well, this is getting very circular and complicated. Maybe I should just open your eyes in case you are really seriously asking that question, again and again.

Our current politicians are BOUGHT. Period. So what does it matter what you OR I think about whether a more liberal or a more conservative should be run? The Roves will have their way. (Although in the case of Romney, I don’t think that was true, because he had his own money.) There was no love lost between them, and it was likely because of Romney’s stand on amnesty. And one thing Romney’s non-election proved is that common sense and planning, prognosticating, doesn’t prevail anyway. Look at what he was running against. And yet it took Republicans to elect Obama by staying home. Let me turn it around and ask you: What is YOUR take on this? What kind of candidate could win? And could your candidate could get the Rovians to back him/her?

Let me tell you a little story about what is going on in Florida. We have a legislature that is run by RINOs, especially on illegal immigration. They are in bed with the Chamber of Commerce and control everything. The thinking citizens do not want this. As a matter of fact, we have tried by activism to change this but it can’t happen because the party is controlled by the moneyed people who want their way.

It doesn’t matter how many phone calls you make; how many faxes you send. Right now they are “debating” (what a joke) instate tuition for illegals, something even they haven’t had the nerve to do since Marco Rubio introduced a DREAM Act twice here in the early 2000′s. This time it will probably pass, because their control has only gotten stronger. Over time, as I said, this issue has become more frightening and deadly to this country.

So your question about whether the candidate should be more liberal or more conservative (in order to win) is actually meaningless, because if the answer is more “liberal”, which it is likely to be, it means that your party has lost its identity. If you are going to tailor your candidate to one that will be more attractive, but will just about mirror that of the opposing party, what’s the point?

I still harbor some hope that enough Americans will wake up and realize what we are faced with. But I certainly don’t think that if something seems to be an indication that you should run someone more like the opposing party that you should go ahead and do that. All you do is betray your own principles.

memyselfni on April 7, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Good Lord, please no more Bushes or any of the Council on Foreign Relations plants. We don’t want Fabian Rockerfellar type Republicans, but real conservatives.

Faramir on April 7, 2014 at 4:48 PM

…Recognizing that Romney lost to the leftist Obama, do you think THEY believe the (R) candidate in 2016 needs to be

1) more conservative or

2) more liberal

than Romney?

rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 3:41 PM

 
Well, this is getting very circular and complicated. Maybe I should just open your eyes in case you are really seriously asking that question, again and again.
 
Our current politicians are BOUGHT. Period. So what does it matter what you OR I think about whether a more liberal or a more conservative should be run? The Roves will have their way. (Although in the case of Romney, I don’t think that was true, because he had his own money.) There was no love lost between them, and it was likely because of Romney’s stand on amnesty. And one thing Romney’s non-election proved is that common sense and planning, prognosticating, doesn’t prevail anyway. Look at what he was running against. And yet it took Republicans to elect Obama by staying home. Let me turn it around and ask you: What is YOUR take on this? What kind of candidate could win? And could your candidate could get the Rovians to back him/her?
 
Let me tell you a little story about what is going on in Florida. We have a legislature that is run by RINOs, especially on illegal immigration. They are in bed with the Chamber of Commerce and control everything. The thinking citizens do not want this. As a matter of fact, we have tried by activism to change this but it can’t happen because the party is controlled by the moneyed people who want their way.
 
It doesn’t matter how many phone calls you make; how many faxes you send. Right now they are “debating” (what a joke) instate tuition for illegals, something even they haven’t had the nerve to do since Marco Rubio introduced a DREAM Act twice here in the early 2000′s. This time it will probably pass, because their control has only gotten stronger. Over time, as I said, this issue has become more frightening and deadly to this country.
 
So your question about whether the candidate should be more liberal or more conservative (in order to win) is actually meaningless, because if the answer is more “liberal”, which it is likely to be, it means that your party has lost its identity. If you are going to tailor your candidate to one that will be more attractive, but will just about mirror that of the opposing party, what’s the point?
 
I still harbor some hope that enough Americans will wake up and realize what we are faced with. But I certainly don’t think that if something seems to be an indication that you should run someone more like the opposing party that you should go ahead and do that. All you do is betray your own principles.
 
memyselfni on April 7, 2014 at 4:45 PM

 
Thanks. Let’s pull out the answer.
 

…because if the answer is more “liberal”, which it is likely to be, it means that your party has lost its identity. If you are going to tailor your candidate to one that will be more attractive, but will just about mirror that of the opposing party, what’s the point?

 
I like that last sentence a lot, btw. And we agree again.
 
The really neat part is to notice how interesting the situation is now. If
 

While he DOES have some progressive views…
 
memyselfni on April 7, 2014 at 11:53 AM

 
Romney had won, it would’ve been viewed as a sign that future (R) candidates needed to lean towards the left to appeal to voters.
 
If When Romney lost, it would’ve been viewed as a sign that future (R) candidates needed to lean towards the left to appeal to voters.
 

But I certainly don’t think that if something seems to be an indication that you should run someone more like the opposing party that you should go ahead and do that.

 
Did I misunderstand that you were a Romney supporter and not just a hold-your-nose-and-vote type?

rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 5:09 PM

OK, DOA. Next.

V7_Sport on April 7, 2014 at 5:37 PM

I’m an optimist.

I think reforms in Mexico will work and we can benefit especially if we work with them.

Otherwise prepare for more OTM dumping.

workingclass artist on April 7, 2014 at 12:24 PM

We cannot balance the budget, reduce spending, eliminate corruption in our own government or even develop a workable healthcare website and you want the U.S. to reform the Mexican government?

bw222 on April 7, 2014 at 1:59 PM

No that’s not what I meant I was talking about American Companies…specifically manufacturing.

workingclass artist on April 7, 2014 at 5:38 PM

rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 5:09 PM

I’ve already made the point that I am a one-issue voter, if there ever was one. And for that reason, yes, I supported Romney wholeheartedly and contributed to his campaign because of that one issue. But I will also say somewhat “cautiously”, because we voters have been betrayed so many times.

And I still think he was THE candidate for the time, and that we lost our best chance to stop the “amnesty express” by not electing him.

The one thing that always puzzles me is why he was and still is so demonized and disliked by (other) conservatives who accepted some liberalism in others, whom they stood by. He seemed to be the poster boy for successful capitalism; he was an attractive person and a good family man. All conservative attributes. And on the other hand, I used to be called a troll and a racist by others on conservative sites for trying to warn people about Rubio. Many of them wanted HIM to be the presidential candidate. They accepted him without question. But even with links, people would not listen to a negative word about him.

memyselfni on April 7, 2014 at 5:57 PM

rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 5:09 PM

 
I’ve already made the point that I am a one-issue voter, if there ever was one. And for that reason, yes, I supported Romney wholeheartedly and contributed to his campaign because of that one issue. But I will also say somewhat “cautiously”, because we voters have been betrayed so many times.
 
And I still think he was THE candidate for the time, and that we lost our best chance to stop the “amnesty express” by not electing him.
 
The one thing that always puzzles me is why he was and still is so demonized and disliked by (other) conservatives who accepted some liberalism in others, whom they stood by. He seemed to be the poster boy for successful capitalism; he was an attractive person and a good family man. All conservative attributes. And on the other hand, I used to be called a troll and a racist by others on conservative sites for trying to warn people about Rubio. Many of them wanted HIM to be the presidential candidate. They accepted him without question. But even with links, people would not listen to a negative word about him.
 
memyselfni on April 7, 2014 at 5:57 PM

 
Maybe those folks were/are one-issue voters, too.

rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 6:26 PM

What’s Love Got to do with It?

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2014 at 6:50 PM

My plan for immigration reform:

1.) Seal the borders…North and South

2.) Hire and train people, (preferably returning military veterans)
to staff and operate a newly created department within the INS with the sole purpose of screening, background checking, evaluating and planning the disposition of those in the country without proper documentation.

3.) Grant everyone in the country illegally 90 days to voluntarily register with the INS and submit to the process described in item #2. Failing to register results in immediate deportation without regard to any other claims, excuses or due process of laws.

4.) Those registering will be assigned one of the case workers who will evaluate the applicants individual circumstances to include: criminal record; years in the country; employment history; educational history; assimilation status, (learned English, joined civic organization, church, other activities indicating a desire to Americanize.)

5.) Penalties will be assessed based upon services used during illegal residency, and a program will be set in place and monitored for the applicant to become fluent in English and to assimilate into the social norms of the American culture. Those with criminal records will be probated or deported, based on the nature of and/or frequency of crimes committed.

The above is just an off the cuff plan for a sensible approach to the problem. The first order of business must be closed borders and a denial of any and all services to illegal immigrants not registered with the INS. That would include emergency medical services, etc. Until we take a stand and control the borders, and until we take a stand and stop giving out freebies to those who are not entitled to them, and until we do something about the 10 million plus who are already among us, the problem will never be solved. A side bonus of my plan is that our returning veterans will have an opportunity at a decent job and some say as to who will be allowed to become a person worthy of putting the uniform on in defense thereof.

bimmcorp on April 7, 2014 at 6:53 PM

1) more conservative or

2) more liberal

than Romney?

rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Ask me. Chuckle!!!!

HonestLib on April 7, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Reading the headline, this is what I’m taking from Jeb Bush’s statement:

‘Conservatives of any kind will already vote for me because I have an ‘R’ after my name, so I’m going to throw them under the bus and pander to everyone else, especially the Latino vote which is so important!’

Am I wrong?

For the record, I actually have great sympathy for illegal immigrants. But I smell pandering.

I am seriously considering sitting out the 2016 election if this is the best the Republican party can bring out. Yes, I know that effectively means a vote for the Democrats. But at this point I’m seriously wondering whether it’s better to vote for Democrat policies even if the candidate has an “R” after his name. When the choice is Democrat vs. Democrat-lite, maybe the time has come to sit out until either the Reps run a real conservative, or let the Reps be obliterated like the Whigs were and try again with a new party — The TEA party, perhaps?

Musings. I will almost certainly hold my nose and vote R in 2016 as the best of bad options. But people like Bush shouldn’t just take my vote for granted. I have no obligation to elect him President.

pendell2 on April 7, 2014 at 7:21 PM

1) more conservative or
 
2) more liberal
 
than Romney?
 
rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 3:41 PM

 
Ask me. Chuckle!!!!
 
HonestLib on April 7, 2014 at 7:17 PM

 
Please consider yourself asked. You’re welcome to chime in regardless, of course, as is anyone. I’d enjoy hearing some more views on the matter. I’d really enjoy someone convincing me that “more liberal” is not the correct answer.
 
And lest anyone thinks I’m piling on:
 

If Obama wins, it will prove to the powers that be that Romney wasn’t liberal enough to win and we’ll get even more liberal (R)s as future presidential candidates.
 
If Romney wins, it will reinforce the idea that (R) candidates should be more liberal to win, and we’ll get even more liberal (R)s as future presidential candidates.
 
They’ve got us. Vote your conscience, but those are the results. Take your pick.
 
rogerb on July 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM

rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 7:49 PM

Doesn’t this make him the ideal Presidential candidate?
Willing to turn his nose up at laws he doesn’t wish to follow.
Wonder if he would feel the same if he came home someday to find a couple with two small children sitting in his kitchen because he left the back door open. They only came in because the kids were hungry and he had plenty of food around. Of course he would now be responsible for the children’s welfare. Plus support of the parents.
I mean he couldn’t call the police on an act of love, it’s not a felony, he left the back door open, like our borders.

Dutchman on April 7, 2014 at 8:43 PM

rogerb on April 7, 2014 at 7:49 PM

Without a doubt, the Republican party is, and has been for a while, progressive lite. The Republican Establishment is not concerned with winning national elections, they are concerned about their individual hold on power and the lining of their pockets and those that fund their elections. They enjoy the power they hold.

As I have said before, I had a working relationship with Romney, and he was a good man, good business leader, and a good liberal. He was not a conservative. To finish up, and to be blunt…..the Republican Establishment must tear down the Conservative movement in the party to stay in power. The enemy of the Republican Party is conservatism, not Democrats.

To answer your question….yes for the current Republicans to stay in power they think they must become more liberal…and they are right and so wrong.

What do I know?

HonestLib on April 7, 2014 at 8:53 PM

From a comment on AmericanThinker which pretty well sums it all up.

“I have always thought Jeb Bush was a sanctimonious jerk and this cinched it for me. I have known PERSONALLY of three people who were murdered, brutally, at the hands of an illegal alien. A brother-in-law- of a friend knifed to death in the street. A neighbor’s neighbor raped and beaten to death in her own home after a contractor employed a day laborer. Another relative mowed down by a drunken POS from Mexico. And this holier-than-thou buffoon says they are all here for LOVE? They are here for food stamps, welfare, housing, education, health care, and a lot more. His remarks are a rebuke to all those who fear for the future of this country because of what is coming here. His words mock the fears of millions. We should all just shut up and listen to Jeb? He knows better because he is a member of an aristocratic ruling elitist class, better than the rest of we peasant hordes? DON’T TALK DOWN TO ME JEB. Don’t tell me what I should think about what I see all around me and experience every day. Am I not supposed to notice the truth because YOU SAY SO? Check out the prisons you jerkwad. Check out the parts of country which are unrecognizable to other Americans. Check out the goals of La Raza. This out-of-touch RINO poster boy thinks his groveling remarks just pushed him to the head of the line for the presidential nomination by greasing the skids for a gigantic Hispanic love fest headed his way. I got news for you Jeb. You’re history before you even got to be a footnote.”

VorDaj on April 7, 2014 at 10:11 PM

Jeb Bush for President?

NO THANK YOU! We already have 1 President who refuses to respect and enforce the Rule of Law, who seeks to help criminals who do not respect our laws at the expense of millions of Americans who do.

Jeb said the laws they break are not Felonies…reminds me of how Obama created a new ‘Right’ that only applies to illegals by telling the DOJ not to arrest, charge, sentence, jail, or deport any illegal for committing any crime less than a Felony.

Add in the fact that he supports Common Core, the dumbing down of America, and there is no way I support this man. If he wants to BE a Liberal he should RUN for President as a Liberal.

No more ‘Bush’es…no more ‘Clinton’s…and no more Obama!

easyt65 on April 8, 2014 at 3:28 AM

What a bunch of Javerts.

yelnats on April 8, 2014 at 5:37 AM

Monday night’s radio program, Mark Levin had this and more to say about Jeb’s remarks:

But here we have really typical liberal tripe justifying that which is illegal, justifying that which is destructive.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/04/08/Mark-Levin-Calls-Jeb-Bush-Act-of-Love-Remarks-Utterly-Irresponsible-Typical-Liberal-Tripe

Video also ^

bluefox on April 8, 2014 at 12:39 PM

VorDaj on April 7, 2014 at 10:11 PM

Exactly. Jeb don’t know the difference between love and lust.

BigAlSouth on April 8, 2014 at 2:07 PM

From a comment on AmericanThinker which pretty well sums it all up.

“I have always thought Jeb Bush was a sanctimonious jerk and this cinched it for me. I have known PERSONALLY of three people who were murdered, brutally, at the hands of an illegal alien. A brother-in-law- of a friend knifed to death in the street. A neighbor’s neighbor raped and beaten to death in her own home after a contractor employed a day laborer. Another relative mowed down by a drunken POS from Mexico. And this holier-than-thou buffoon says they are all here for LOVE? They are here for food stamps, welfare, housing, education, health care, and a lot more. His remarks are a rebuke to all those who fear for the future of this country because of what is coming here. His words mock the fears of millions. We should all just shut up and listen to Jeb? He knows better because he is a member of an aristocratic ruling elitist class, better than the rest of we peasant hordes? DON’T TALK DOWN TO ME JEB. Don’t tell me what I should think about what I see all around me and experience every day. Am I not supposed to notice the truth because YOU SAY SO? Check out the prisons you jerkwad. Check out the parts of country which are unrecognizable to other Americans. Check out the goals of La Raza. This out-of-touch RINO poster boy thinks his groveling remarks just pushed him to the head of the line for the presidential nomination by greasing the skids for a gigantic Hispanic love fest headed his way. I got news for you Jeb. You’re history before you even got to be a footnote.”

Thanks for sharing that, Vordaj. The piece from American Thinker nailed it.

Conservchik on April 8, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Well, of all the stupid things anyone from the Bush family could have said, that took the prize. He may get the establishment RINOs behind him, but the grass roots will stay home in numbers large enough to allow Shrillary the presidency. Count on it. I held my nose and voted for McCain. I won’t do it again for Jeb ‘act of love’ Bush.

Conservchik on April 8, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5