Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Goodbye, Jeb

I refused to vote for Jeb Bush for president, even though he was the best conservative (sans immigration) of them all. Tonight, he quit the race.

As governor of Florida, he was gun rights when gun rights "wasn't" cool. He stopped the monorail boondoggle. I could go on, but I won't. This is just a short post to wish him well in retirement. I had two problems with him: Amnesty and his surname.

16 comments:

  1. “There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune”

    Jeb missed his high tide.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also had two difficulties with Jeb!: amnesty and his free-spending approach to education. Tossing more money at our broken public education system won't fix it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Bush’s educational foundation, the Foundation for Excellence in Education, is tied at the hip to the federally funded testing consortium called PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers), which raked in $186 million through Race to the Top to develop nationalized tests “aligned” to the top-down Common Core program."

    http://michellemalkin.com/2013/09/20/jeb-bushs-latest-common-core-snit-fit/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Amnesty is Marco Rubio's middle name.

    http://www.rubioamnestyplan.com/

    ReplyDelete
  5. My biggest problem with Jeb is that he seemed to have a fairly profound disdain for the conservatives; I mean it almost seemed like he sneered at times at the mere mention. That, and amnesty and Common Core.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you've confounded Jeb with Jon Huntsman (and, to a lesser degree, John Kasich).

      Delete
  6. My guess is he has retired to the Green Room to wait for the RNC to exit the smoke-filled rooms* to announce that he has been drafted after fining that there were no acceptable candidates in the Primaries.


    *How do they do that in smoke-free venues these days?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are no smoke filled rooms in the Republican Party and have not been for more than 35 years. There were some smoke-filled antechambers ca. 1976, but not many decisions of consequence were made there.

      Delete
  7. Don I pretty much agree with you on Jeb! except I'm not sure how much of a Conservative he really is. It seems like his handlers during this campaign convinced him that he didn't need Conservatives to win. I wish him well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Regardless of his qualities, and what we might consider his disqualities, we don't want anything to do with what looks anything like a dynasty.

    ReplyDelete
  9. --even though he was the best conservative (sans immigration) of them all.--

    A true conservative would never go along with the ongoing transformation of America into something else through legal and illegal immigration. If the Washington elites continue to win on immigration, we are finished as a nation:

    --The 1965 act marked a radical break from the immigration policies of the past. The law as it stood then excluded Asians and Africans and preferred northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern ones. At the height of the civil rights movement of the 1960s the law was seen as an embarrassment by, among others, President John F. Kennedy, who called the then-quota-system "nearly intolerable". After Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill at the foot of the Statue of Liberty.

    In order to convince the American people of the legislation's merits, its proponents assured voters that passage would not influence significantly America's culture. President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions", and Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect America's demographic mix; these assertions would later prove grossly inaccurate.--

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

    ReplyDelete
  10. --even though he was the best conservative (sans immigration) of them all.--

    A true conservative would never go along with the ongoing transformation of America into something else through legal and illegal immigration. If the Washington elites continue to win on immigration, we are finished as a nation:

    --The 1965 act marked a radical break from the immigration policies of the past. The law as it stood then excluded Asians and Africans and preferred northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern ones. At the height of the civil rights movement of the 1960s the law was seen as an embarrassment by, among others, President John F. Kennedy, who called the then-quota-system "nearly intolerable". After Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill at the foot of the Statue of Liberty.

    In order to convince the American people of the legislation's merits, its proponents assured voters that passage would not influence significantly America's culture. President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions", and Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect America's demographic mix; these assertions would later prove grossly inaccurate.--

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

    ReplyDelete
  11. What is your definition of amnesty, Don. Do you truly believe this country is going to summarily deport 11 million plus w/o regard for family situations?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll wager Mr. Surber believes that our stock of illegal aliens can be dealt with much as is our stock of criminals: by deterrence and incapacitation which contains the problems they cause. You'd never suggest you cannot enforce the law and need to make life more comfortable for criminals because you cannot lock up 16.5 million people simultaneously. The illegal alien problem is simpler to attach and solve because new additions to that population can be readily stanched. You do that through public works and hiring patrols. We build 38,000 miles of Interstate Highways between 1956 and 1994. A 2000 mile long cement wall topped with razor wire will not break the bank. The City of New York employs 60,000 people to patrol its streets, run its jails, and provide administrative support and supervision to its working officers; for the federal government to employ 47,000 people toward the task of guarding the border, patrolling the border, and detaining those who've crossed unlawfully will not break the bank either. The State of New York ca. 1985 employed about 100,000 people to process 250,000 from arrest to conviction to their locus of punishment. The country as a whole can afford that many to catch, jail, punish, and deport visa overstayers.

      It requires patient institution building, but its nothing that hasn't been done before.

      Delete
    2. Eleven million, whatever. Start deportations of illegal aliens and many will self-deport (as they did during the 2008/2009 bubble burst).
      Cease supplemental/federal funding for infrastructure, police, education, etc., in "sanctuary cities."
      Find the visa overstayers and deport them, too.
      Add a tax for personal funds transfers overseas (we paid more to send money to a relative in one of the Great Lakes states than the place charged for sending money to Mexico).
      Fine and jail employers with illegal alien employees.
      Regularly publish identities of those employers/companies that hire many illegal aliens.

      Delete
  12. I hope Jeb! enjoys a long, well-deserved retirement - in Mexico. - Elric

    ReplyDelete