March 22, 2013

Meet the new Bush, same as the old Bush

With apologies to Townshend and Daltrey.

Here's the Derb on Jeb Bush's immigration book.

15 comments:

Harry Baldwin said...

Is that the new flag design for America 2.0, AKA the USSA?

Anonymous said...

Yep. And you'll notice that they took out those uncooperative southern stripes.

Those damn carpet-baggers won't stop til they've left behind a wasteland.

Jose Dorito

Re-Pete in 2016

Reg C├Žsar said...

To find a Bush I could identify with, I had to go back to Jeb's great-great-great grandfather Obadiah. He was so worked up about slavery, he petitioned the New York legislature to secede from the union. Imagine how much nicer Rochester, not to mention NYC, would be today had he succeeded!

The Bushes tried twice to become Californians, but it wasn't to be. Obadiah ran off to the gold rush, liked what he saw and started home to fetch his family. He didn't survive the trip. Son James was the rector of Grace Church in San Francisco for a few years, but gave up and went home, inspiring Mark Twain to be the first writer to satirize a Bush.

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

The Derb.

ben tillman said...

Apologies? Townshend's point was that elections consistently fail to "give the people what they want" (to borrow from a songwriter Townshend considered superior to himself). Of course, it turns out Townshend remained enough of a political naif that he supported the Iraq invasion decades later.

countenance said...

I pretty much think it's a foregone conclusion that Jeb Bush is the 2016 Republican nominee for President, unless something very weird and very good happens.

Aside from the fact that Republican primaries and caucuses and Republican Presidential politics are "it's my turn" and "who voters have heard of" affairs, who's going to beat him?

Rand Paul might have, and even before he finally threw in with the open borders and amnesty crowd once and for all, his chances were slim. But now that he's plainly and forever on the other side on that issue, his chances to win the Republican nomination are now zero. That's because the cheap labor lobby in the Republican establishment is mainly neo-con in foreign policy, and they'll never like Rand because of his semi-isolationism. Why should they settle for a "half loaf" in open borders but semi-isolationist Rand Paul when they can have the "whole loaf" with open borders and neo-con Jeb Bush?

Anonymous said...

Who did more to create the new Democratic majority? Bush II or Obama? If Bush II weren't such a dufus on every level, would GOP be in such dire situation? I think Bush II ruined the GOP for an entire generation of kids.

I recall reading that many college kids in 2000 and 2004 were conservative or trending that way. But after 8 yrs of Bush, it was just too much.

So, whatever Reagan did in his 8 yrs, Bush II more than ruined it with his 8 yrs.
But don't blame Bush II. Blame the GOP bigshots and neocons who made him.

Anonymous said...

It seems GOP and Dems look for different leaders.

GOP looks for dimbulbs who don't think much and talk much and just do what they're supposed to do.
Not that Eisenhower and Reagan were dummies, but they had a simple views of things and stuck to the formula handed to them by the party. They were figureheads. The one exception was Nixon, a real thinker, but he was nuts.

Bush II was the ultimate figurehead. So, GOP establishment likes figurehead with not much in their heads.

It seems Democratic party prefers guys with some thinking inside their heads. Carter was a thoughtful person though a fool just the same. Clinton was very smart. Obama at least gives the impression of thinking about stuff even if he isn't.

Maybe Democratic politics is healthier in this sense. Because Dem leaders are more into thought and individuality, there is some tension and creative dynamic between the party elite and leaders.
IN contrast on the GOP side, the leaders are nothing but figurehead followers of the elite line.
Thus, the GOP big bosses who pull the strings just got too powerful and overbearing within the party.

Anonymous said...

The one exception was Nixon, a real thinker, but he was nuts.

Will somebody explain the brilliant political strategy behind Nixon's decision to create the "Hispanic" category, a decision which will erode the ability of the Republican party to compete with the democrats?

Anonymous said...

Reagan was lucky. He did tiny operations against Libyra and Grenada and he was indireclty involved with the Iran-Contra things. In Reagan's day a neo-con like Reagan who was pro-military defense won because states like California and Washington and even New York had well paying aerospace workers. People around here complain about the military contracts those jobs even today pay better than most factory jobs. Reagan anmesty was worst since Reagan could get away with it while Bush who came several years later could not since illegals reputation were worst than they were in Reagan's day.

Anonymous said...

Well, in Nixons day Hispanics were only 15 percnet of the county of La and most were born in the US, the illegal built up took placed after he was president. In the 1940's Mexiccans were in separate high schools in So Calif so Nixon thought he should give tham a upper hand but he had no idea how big of a group they would become.

Anonymous said...

Please no more scions of international investment banking families like the Bushes. They really should be the last types to rule a country. Especially now. Somewhere along the line they got very confused and need to be hammered about it constantly.

Anonymous said...

More critically, the rate of foreign migration in the state’s cities is falling behind many competitor cities. For example, over the last decade, New York had almost six times the increase in foreign born than Los Angeles. Houston, which has barely one third the population of LA-Orange County, increased its foreign born nearly four times as fast. Overall, LA-Orange had the lowest percentage increase of any major US metro. Given that the Southland has been the state’s immigration magnet for a generation, this is not good news. Lol, Texas will stop be cocky and find out what Blue states had toput up with the foreign born.





Anonymous said...

In Reagan's day a neo-con like Reagan who was pro-military defense won because states like California and Washington and even New York had well paying aerospace workers.

Being pro-military during the Cold War did not make one a neocon. Paleocons were just as pro-military because they were hard core anti-communists. In fact the Cold War papered over the differences between paleos and neos. After the fall of the USSR we saw the two part company as the paleos wanted to disband our Cold War posture, but the neocons wanted to use the moment to push American global supremacy, i.e. empire.

I doubt Reagan would be considered a neocon if he were alive today. Remember Reagan angered the neocons of the day when he withdrew US troops from Lebanon after the Marines' barracks were blown up.

Yes Reagan had his little action in Grenada, but it was done in the hey day of the Cold War to prevent that island from becoming a pawn against us.

Anonymous said...

Reagan was not paleo-con he doubled the militaary budget that most people here are against. Most paleo-cons with the exception of Pat Buchanan here would have opposed US involvement with Vietnam. Reagan supported that. Reagan caused California to become Mexican by his legalizatoin act. A study by USC shows that La received the largest group of illegals by Reagan's legalization act. He is no god but caused as many on the left here our problem. He got a lot of money from big-agri in California and wealthy business interest in Los Angeles and Orange County that got him to legalized millions. The only thing he is better than the Bushes is he said he was sorry.