Jeb Bush: I won't rule out 2016 White House run 'but I won't declare today'

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Jeb Bush: I won't rule out 2016 White House run 'but I won't declare today'

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    Jeb Bush trying to lock down the nativist vote for 2016.

     

    Trouble Brewing? Jeb Bush Backs Off Past Support For Path To Citizenship

    Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said on Monday that his immigration plan will not include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, backing off his previous support for a policy that pro-reform activists consider a centerpiece of comprehensive reform.

    “Our proposal is a proposal that looks forward,” Bush said, “and if we want to create an immigration policy that’s going to work we can’t continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration. I think it’s important that there is a natural friction between our immigrant heritage and the rule of law. This is the right place, I think, to be in that sense.”

    His latest statement appears to be a shift from as recently as last year, when he told Charlie Rose in a  June 2012 interview that he backed a path to citizenship, but would tolerate a lesser legal status for undocumented immigrants if necessary.

    “You have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it,” Bush said at the time. “And so, either a path to citizenship, which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives; Or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind, which now hopefully will become — I would accept that in a heartbeat as well if that’s the path to get us to where we need to be which is on a positive basis using immigration to create sustained growth.”

    Bush’s co-author, Goldwater Institute director Clint Bolick, is also on the record backing a path to citizenship, writing in 2007 that such a policy was a critical prerequisite to bringing Latino voters to the GOP.

    For years, the former Florida governor has been a vocal advocate for immigration reform, even while his party shifted rightward, culminating in Mitt Romney’s uber-hawkish “self-deportation” position in the 2012 presidential campaign. But Bush’s latest comments suggest that as party leaders begin to ease to the left, they may overtake his position along the way.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/trouble-brewing-jeb-bush-backs-off-past-support-for-path-to-citizenship.php

     



    Hardly nativist; the view respects the law and the economic benefit of immigrants to the country.  I listened to his interview along with Bolick on NPR this morning.

     

    Jeb Bush would be a great 2016 candidate, his only problem is the Bush name which will just garner a lot of negative press from the whining left, we'll get endless stories how Jeb stole the election for W.

    Jeb Bush is a social moderate who embraces the conservative fiscal roots of the party, self reliance and a smaller Federal government.  His view on immigration should be the mainstream position.  Legal status for those already here so they can come out of the shadows; but no direct tie to an easy path to citizenship or a reward for illegal activity.  Under a legal working status these "legals" could then start the legal immigration process from their home of origin, but at the end of the line.

    This recognizes the economics and value for immigrant workers.  The immigration policy should be adjusted to favor skills sets are needed for the country and social/family sponsorhips should be limited to immediate family husband/wife children; not extended to siblings and parents.

     




     

    Heh, heh, heh...the problem is which baby_Bush would show up.

    The one who now is against immigration reform

    or

    The one who was (2012) in favor of a path to citizenship.

     

    I'll bet he's a shoe-in, all he has to do is declare himself "severely conservative" and the wingnuts will believe him.



    Obviously you haven't bothered to read on hear what he has said on immigration reform.  Btw he's for it just not the amnesty part.

    He's for legal status with conditions; paying back taxes and fines, and then allowing them to start a parallell legal application from their country of origin; just no cutting in line which is an affront to our laws and all of those who came the legal way.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Jeb Bush: I won't rule out 2016 White House run 'but I won't declare today'

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    Jeb Bush trying to lock down the nativist vote for 2016.

     

    Trouble Brewing? Jeb Bush Backs Off Past Support For Path To Citizenship

    Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said on Monday that his immigration plan will not include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, backing off his previous support for a policy that pro-reform activists consider a centerpiece of comprehensive reform.

    â€ÂÂÂœOur proposal is a proposal that looks forward,” Bush said, â€ÂÂÂœand if we want to create an immigration policy that’s going to work we can’t continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration. I think it’s important that there is a natural friction between our immigrant heritage and the rule of law. This is the right place, I think, to be in that sense.”

    His latest statement appears to be a shift from as recently as last year, when he told Charlie Rose in a  June 2012 interview that he backed a path to citizenship, but would tolerate a lesser legal status for undocumented immigrants if necessary.

    â€ÂÂÂœYou have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it,” Bush said at the time. â€ÂÂÂœAnd so, either a path to citizenship, which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives; Or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind, which now hopefully will become — I would accept that in a heartbeat as well if that’s the path to get us to where we need to be which is on a positive basis using immigration to create sustained growth.”

    Bush’s co-author, Goldwater Institute director Clint Bolick, is also on the record backing a path to citizenship, writing in 2007 that such a policy was a critical prerequisite to bringing Latino voters to the GOP.

    For years, the former Florida governor has been a vocal advocate for immigration reform, even while his party shifted rightward, culminating in Mitt Romney’s uber-hawkish â€ÂÂÂœself-deportation” position in the 2012 presidential campaign. But Bush’s latest comments suggest that as party leaders begin to ease to the left, they may overtake his position along the way.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/trouble-brewing-jeb-bush-backs-off-past-support-for-path-to-citizenship.php

     



    Hardly nativist; the view respects the law and the economic benefit of immigrants to the country.  I listened to his interview along with Bolick on NPR this morning.

     

    Jeb Bush would be a great 2016 candidate, his only problem is the Bush name which will just garner a lot of negative press from the whining left, we'll get endless stories how Jeb stole the election for W.

    Jeb Bush is a social moderate who embraces the conservative fiscal roots of the party, self reliance and a smaller Federal government.  His view on immigration should be the mainstream position.  Legal status for those already here so they can come out of the shadows; but no direct tie to an easy path to citizenship or a reward for illegal activity.  Under a legal working status these "legals" could then start the legal immigration process from their home of origin, but at the end of the line.

    This recognizes the economics and value for immigrant workers.  The immigration policy should be adjusted to favor skills sets are needed for the country and social/family sponsorhips should be limited to immediate family husband/wife children; not extended to siblings and parents.

     




     

    Heh, heh, heh...the problem is which baby_Bush would show up.

    The one who now is against immigration reform

    or

    The one who was (2012) in favor of a path to citizenship.

     

    I'll bet he's a shoe-in, all he has to do is declare himself "severely conservative" and the wingnuts will believe him.

     



    Obviously you haven't bothered to read on hear what he has said on immigration reform.  Btw he's for it just not the amnesty part.

     

    He's for legal status with conditions; paying back taxes and fines, and then allowing them to start a parallell legal application from their country of origin; just no cutting in line which is an affront to our laws and all of those who came the legal way.

     




     

    What he is saying today is obvious panderering and back-pedaling of what he said 6 months ago.

    He's another Mittens; He'll take every position on every issue until he finds the ones that'll get him the nomination. After that all bets are off...again.

    That was one of Mittens worst flaws, no one could predict on which side of an issue he would come down on, on any given day.



    Evolving is what Politicians do..........our current leader has evolved quite abit from; how long it took to wrap up Iraq, to Gitmo, to his position on the patriot act, to assination, to couch potato  drone warfare and a medal for it to boot as well as DOMA, and the list goes on and on.

    Bush is promoting significant immigation reform including everything but the amnesty issue because in retrospect when it happened the last time under Reagan it didn't work out so well; in fact it just encouraged more law breaking.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Jeb Bush: I won't rule out 2016 White House run 'but I won't declare today'

    Getting Bush III elected would be Bush I's crowning achievement on both the national and family fronts.  He was the one Poppy always wanted to succeed him, but he had to settle for the lesser when it looked like the smart one just wasn't into it.  Fortunately he still had his henchman, Mr. Cheney, viable enough to serve as eminence gris to Bush II.

    If Jeb loses or Poppy dies first, it will be the undoing of the core of The Republican Establishment.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Jeb Bush: I won't rule out 2016 White House run 'but I won't declare today'

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:



    Evolving is what Politicians do..........our current leader has evolved quite abit from; how long it took to wrap up Iraq, to Gitmo, to his position on the patriot act, to assination, to couch potato  drone warfare and a medal for it to boot as well as DOMA, and the list goes on and on.

     

     

    Bush is promoting significant immigation reform including everything but the amnesty issue because in retrospect when it happened the last time under Reagan it didn't work out so well; in fact it just encouraged more law breaking.

     




     

    Seriously?

    You're trying to equate how long it took to end the longest war in US history to a flip/floping politician pandering to a divided base? Now that is fvcking hilarious.

    Sorry, couldn't read anymore, laughing too hard.....



    You just can't handle the truth so cover your eyes and block your ears hoping it all goes away.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Jeb Bush: I won't rule out 2016 White House run 'but I won't declare today'

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:



    Evolving is what Politicians do..........our current leader has evolved quite abit from; how long it took to wrap up Iraq, to Gitmo, to his position on the patriot act, to assination, to couch potato  drone warfare and a medal for it to boot as well as DOMA, and the list goes on and on.

     

     

    Bush is promoting significant immigation reform including everything but the amnesty issue because in retrospect when it happened the last time under Reagan it didn't work out so well; in fact it just encouraged more law breaking.

     




     

    Seriously?

    You're trying to equate how long it took to end the longest war in US history to a flip/floping politician pandering to a divided base? Now that is fvcking hilarious.

    Sorry, couldn't read anymore, laughing too hard.....

     



    You just can't handle the truth so cover your eyes and block your ears hoping it all goes away.

     

     




    What a convincing argument.

     

    You post some nonsense equating PotUS getting us out of the longest, most futile war in US history with a politician flip/flopping on immigration reform in 6 months and you say I need to cover my eyes?

     

    Oh I get it, it ONLY took him 6 months to flip/flop rather than a year of war or in the case of gay marriage 5 years.

    So ya, you got me there, baby-Bush can definitely flop faster than a lead balloon.



    You really have a hard time of dealing with a complete argument. Iraq was one of a number of points I made in rebutting you.  But you cherry pick and can read no more.

     

    Evolving is what Politicians do..........our current leader has evolved quite abit from; how long it took to wrap up Iraq, to Gitmo, to his position on the patriot act, to assination, to couch potato  drone warfare and a medal for it to boot as well as DOMA, and the list goes on and on.


    BTW the last time I checked more soldiers died while Obama was commnder in chief then did under Bush.  But that's not even the point, and I agree Iraq was a bad decision in retrospect.

    The simple point is that your hero our current POTUS has had a dramatic set of flip flops, let's call it extreme evolving as I wouldn't want to call it blatant and obvious lying to chase votes.  Bush's position is just a more refined and nuanced view of his imigration reform plan.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Jeb Bush: I won't rule out 2016 White House run 'but I won't declare today'

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:



    Evolving is what Politicians do..........our current leader has evolved quite abit from; how long it took to wrap up Iraq, to Gitmo, to his position on the patriot act, to assination, to couch potato  drone warfare and a medal for it to boot as well as DOMA, and the list goes on and on.

     

     

    Bush is promoting significant immigation reform including everything but the amnesty issue because in retrospect when it happened the last time under Reagan it didn't work out so well; in fact it just encouraged more law breaking.

     




     

    Seriously?

    You're trying to equate how long it took to end the longest war in US history to a flip/floping politician pandering to a divided base? Now that is fvcking hilarious.

    Sorry, couldn't read anymore, laughing too hard.....

     



    You just can't handle the truth so cover your eyes and block your ears hoping it all goes away.

     

     




    What a convincing argument.

     

    You post some nonsense equating PotUS getting us out of the longest, most futile war in US history with a politician flip/flopping on immigration reform in 6 months and you say I need to cover my eyes?

     

    Oh I get it, it ONLY took him 6 months to flip/flop rather than a year of war or in the case of gay marriage 5 years.

    So ya, you got me there, baby-Bush can definitely flop faster than a lead balloon.

     



    You really have a hard time of dealing with a complete argument. Iraq was one of a number of points I made in rebutting you.  But you cherry pick and can read no more.

     

     

    Evolving is what Politicians do..........our current leader has evolved quite abit from; how long it took to wrap up Iraq, to Gitmo, to his position on the patriot act, to assination, to couch potato  drone warfare and a medal for it to boot as well as DOMA, and the list goes on and on.


    BTW the last time I checked more soldiers died while Obama was commnder in chief then did under Bush.  But that's not even the point, and I agree Iraq was a bad decision in retrospect.

    The simple point is that your hero our current POTUS has had a dramatic set of flip flops, let's call it extreme evolving as I wouldn't want to call it blatant and obvious lying to chase votes.  Bush's position is just a more refined and nuanced view of his imigration reform plan.

     




     

    I didn't cherry pick anything, it's what you wrote.

    If you want to pull that claim, fine but don't try and blame me for the stupid crap YOU post.

     

    And here you are making another spurious and absolutely stupid claim straight out of the wingnut fringe.

    BTW the last time I checked more soldiers died while Obama was commnder in chief then did under Bush.

    Where the fcuk do you get such ridiculous drivel? What the heck did you "check" except some whacko wingnut echo chamber website.

    As for the Patriot Act: Are you saying he was aginst it? Even though he voted for it as senator and Clinton tried to use it as an attack against him in the campaign.

    Mr. OBAMA: Mr. President, 4 years ago, following one of the most devastating attacks in our Nation’s history, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act to give our Nation’s law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world–terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw on September 11th.  

        We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.  

        But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn’t just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn’t need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.   Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an “either- or” type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.

        http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/01/clinton-slams-o/

     

    Where has he been inconsistent on drones? Where is the specific flip/flop.

     

    And like I said, Obama's position on DOMA took 5 yrs to evolve, baby-Bush's 5 months.



    Military deaths under Obama since Jan 2009, I meant to specify Afghanistan but here they both are.

    KABUL - U.S. military deaths in the Afghan war have reached 2,000, a cold reminder of the human cost of an 11-year-old conflict that now garners little public interest at home as the United States prepares to withdraw most of its combat forces by the end of 2014.

    BTW 630 under bush 1370 plus under Obama.

     

    As of Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2011, at least 4,474 members of the U.S. military had died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

    BTW vast majority of Iraq deaths are under Bush.

    Patriot Act (from Huffington)

    Then-Senatorial candidate Obama in 2003 branded the Patriot Act "shoddy and dangerous" and pledged to dump it. He made the pledge in response to a candidate's survey by the National Organization for Women. Obama reneged on the pledge. But he did work to shave off some of the more blatantly outrageous constitutional abuses in the Act by imposing some civil liberties protections in the gathering and use of intelligence, on the use of torture in interrogations, and requiring at least some semblance of due process in court proceedings. But that paled in significance when Obama in a letter and with little fanfare and comment routinely let stand most of the still noxious provisions in the Act.

    Drones

    Yes he has been consistent on drones as he oversees terror tuesdays and gives a thumbs up or down to potential drone strikes.  Most likley not the image that he was elected for in 2008.   Politically it has been better for him, but damaging to the US, as there has been dramatic collateral damge that becomes a recruiting tool for al qaeda like groups.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Jeb Bush: I won't rule out 2016 White House run 'but I won't declare today'

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:



    Evolving is what Politicians do..........our current leader has evolved quite abit from; how long it took to wrap up Iraq, to Gitmo, to his position on the patriot act, to assination, to couch potato  drone warfare and a medal for it to boot as well as DOMA, and the list goes on and on.

     

     

    Bush is promoting significant immigation reform including everything but the amnesty issue because in retrospect when it happened the last time under Reagan it didn't work out so well; in fact it just encouraged more law breaking.

     




     

    Seriously?

    You're trying to equate how long it took to end the longest war in US history to a flip/floping politician pandering to a divided base? Now that is fvcking hilarious.

    Sorry, couldn't read anymore, laughing too hard.....

     



    You just can't handle the truth so cover your eyes and block your ears hoping it all goes away.

     

     




    What a convincing argument.

     

    You post some nonsense equating PotUS getting us out of the longest, most futile war in US history with a politician flip/flopping on immigration reform in 6 months and you say I need to cover my eyes?

     

    Oh I get it, it ONLY took him 6 months to flip/flop rather than a year of war or in the case of gay marriage 5 years.

    So ya, you got me there, baby-Bush can definitely flop faster than a lead balloon.

     



    You really have a hard time of dealing with a complete argument. Iraq was one of a number of points I made in rebutting you.  But you cherry pick and can read no more.

     

     

    Evolving is what Politicians do..........our current leader has evolved quite abit from; how long it took to wrap up Iraq, to Gitmo, to his position on the patriot act, to assination, to couch potato  drone warfare and a medal for it to boot as well as DOMA, and the list goes on and on.


    BTW the last time I checked more soldiers died while Obama was commnder in chief then did under Bush.  But that's not even the point, and I agree Iraq was a bad decision in retrospect.

    The simple point is that your hero our current POTUS has had a dramatic set of flip flops, let's call it extreme evolving as I wouldn't want to call it blatant and obvious lying to chase votes.  Bush's position is just a more refined and nuanced view of his imigration reform plan.

     




    Here's some facts for your bullshiite claims;

     

    US military service member deaths per yaer
    01 = 12
    02 = 48
    03 = 531
    04 = 900
    05 = 942
    06 = 918
    07 = 1019
    08 = 466
    09 = 461
    10 = 559
    11 = 469
    12 = 305

    http://apps.washingtonpost.com/national/fallen/dates/2007/



    Yes, I grabbed Afghanistan number, so not the whole story.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Jeb Bush: I won't rule out 2016 White House run 'but I won't declare today'

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     


    Military deaths under Obama since Jan 2009, I meant to specify Afghanistan but here they both are.

     

     

    KABUL - U.S. military deaths in the Afghan war have reached 2,000, a cold reminder of the human cost of an 11-year-old conflict that now garners little public interest at home as the United States prepares to withdraw most of its combat forces by the end of 2014.

    BTW 630 under bush 1370 plus under Obama.

     

    As of Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2011, at least 4,474 members of the U.S. military had died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

    BTW vast majority of Iraq deaths are under Bush.

    Patriot Act (from Huffington)

    Then-Senatorial candidate Obama in 2003 branded the Patriot Act "shoddy and dangerous" and pledged to dump it. He made the pledge in response to a candidate's survey by the National Organization for Women. Obama reneged on the pledge. But he did work to shave off some of the more blatantly outrageous constitutional abuses in the Act by imposing some civil liberties protections in the gathering and use of intelligence, on the use of torture in interrogations, and requiring at least some semblance of due process in court proceedings. But that paled in significance when Obama in a letter and with little fanfare and comment routinely let stand most of the still noxious provisions in the Act.

    Drones

    Yes he has been consistent on drones as he oversees terror tuesdays and gives a thumbs up or down to potential drone strikes.  Most likley not the image that he was elected for in 2008.   Politically it has been better for him, but damaging to the US, as there has been dramatic collateral damge that becomes a recruiting tool for al qaeda like groups.

     

     

    So now the fact that PotUS is actually doing what he campaigned on, prosecuting the war in Afghanistan, now that irks you. Even though he has stated repeatedly that the war in Afghanistan was a legitimate action because that is where the Al Queda threats and attacks originated from.

     

    The Patriot Act full answer:

    2003

    Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, although I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal that addressed  in a much more limited fashion the legitimate needs of law enforcement in combating terrorism (for example, permitting a warrant for the interception of cell phone calls, and not just land-based phones to accommodate changes in technology).


    February 16, 2006

    This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe [...] So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise.

     


    I see that you have backed off your drone flip/flop assertion  to a

    "I just don't like him getting credit for effectively killing our enemies"



    on Drones ..........coming soon to the US when we need them.  It never ceases to amaze me how Obama has outBushed the Bush Doctrine.  Bush listened to conversations from his office through the Patriot Act to the horror of the Dems, while Obama targets people from his couch on Terror Tuesdays. 

     

    Washington (CNN) -- Attorney General Eric Holder is not entirely ruling out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share