Jeb Bush? Right Message, Wrong Messenger.

Jeb BushGage SkidmoreLet it be noted that Jeb Bush deserves kudos for making sense on the immigration issue. When he describes coming to the United States illegally in order to find opportunity as "an act of love, it's an act of commitment to your family," he displays more compassion and decency than any of the fence-building border warriors possess in their shriveled, nativist souls. He also shows a way to a future that may have room for a Republican Party in a world that looks unlikely to cater to the preferences of grumpy know-nothings who don't like cilantro. But that's not going to be an enduring or healthy future if it requires turning a political party into a family project.

Political parties that rely on genetically intermingled talent pools aren't signs of a healthy political system. That's not to say people should lose the right to pursue political careers just because they're related to somebody else who held office. But in a nation of over 300 million people, surely one of the two organizations clinging with lamprey-like tenacity to coercive power can rotate through a few surnames from time to time, if only in its applications for tenancy in the White House.

Yes, families often develop traditions of "public service" as one generation passes on a taste to the next for living off of others without producing anything of value for which people might willingly pay: Adams, Roosevelt, Taft—and now Bush and Clinton.* But there's a difference between a family tradition and an actual, no-bullshit dynasty, and the GOP is drifting close to crossing that line.

Jeb Bush made waves with his comments because he took a strong position—one that's at-odds with the large meathead faction of his party. It's also a position that seems to strike a chord with much of the American public, as repeated polls reveal. That's not the only issue that matters to Americans, but it's an important one for the GOP.

If other Republicans can sound the same note, maybe their political party will still be relevant after the Bush family has moved on to other endeavors.

* And Kennedy. How could I friggin' forget the Kennedys.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Is there anyone we would be happy to see president?

  • Paul.||

    Joe Biden. For the yuks.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    It wouldn't be funny for very long.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    A heartbeat away from the presidency, a brain cell away from a vegetable .

  • Sudden||

    He'll grow that brain cell yet.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Khan Noonien Singh.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    For fisting or actual leadership?

  • Hugh Akston||

    The Macho Man Randy Savage.

  • Sudden||

    Camacho Man Randy Savage.

  • Hyperion||

    Hyperion.

  • Hyperion||

    Although I would prefer the title Supreme Overlord.

  • OneOut||

    I would go with Tony to drive the final nail in progressive's coffin for a generation.

    Don't laugh. He's as qualified for the job as the guy we have now.

  • Hyperion||

    Well, he certainly would drive us over the cliff faster, if he didn't get committed to the insane asylum first. But I wouldn't bet on the latter not happening first.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Um, Rand Paul? Is this a trick question?

  • Hyperion||

    Obvious answer. (buzzer sounds). Prol disqualified from round 2...

  • anon||

    Calvin Coolidge?

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Grovlin Clevelidge?

  • ||

    Sounds too much like Grover's Cleavage.

  • Raven Nation||

    OT: more eminent domain shit:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....eize-land/

  • Raven Nation||

    OT, more eminent domain shit:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....eize-land/

  • From the Tundra||

    More of the same. Officials fucking with people because they can.

    No permits, bitches! We get ur land!

  • Hyperion||

    The only thing worse than eminent domain, is eminent domain twice!

  • Raven Nation||

    I think everyone gets a squirrel-related pass today. I'm on Safari b/c Firefox just wouldn't let me comment.

  • Hyperion||

    Sorry, RN, you can't give yourself a squirrel pass. That would be anarchy! Please fill out the proper forms and fees and snail mail those along with your check.

  • Raven Nation||

    Ha! Get ready for a virtual Ruby Ridge.

  • PapayaSF||

    I'm on Safari b/c Firefox just wouldn't let me comment.

    Were you trying to say something homophobic?

  • Freedom Frog||

    So the GOP will be more relevant if they get more Donkey in them. OK, Reason. Now I get the Cosmotarian and DC-centric jabs. They're spot on.

  • Sudden||

    Reason libertarianism is about sipping Cosmos at DC cocktail parties.

    Traditional libertarianism is about sipping old fashioneds at poker games.

    My libertarianism is about drinking Drano because fuck it, the whole world is screwed and not worthy of my continued presence.

  • anon||

    You call it drano, I call it everclear. Same thing right?

  • Hugh Akston||

    It must be really difficult to live your life when everything is divided into a partisan binary, like trying to remember all of the gendered pronouns in German.

    Can you eat a hamburger or is that a Team Blue food? How about a cheeseburger? Does it matter if it's swiss cheese versus cheddar? Does putting mustard on it change the political orientation of your burger?

  • Sudden||

    Answer Key:

    Swiss = Dem burger because half of them speak French and the French are pussies.

    Mustard = Dem burger because there are two types of mustard: yellow mustard, mostly made by French's and ergo, for pussies and dijon mustard, which sounds french and ergo for pussies.

    /Murica

  • Hugh Akston||

    You forgot about brown mustard, asshole. Which is definitely Blue because Team Red doesn't want anything brown near its food.

    Also, which is the Team Red way to hang your toilet paper?

  • Sudden||

    Trick question: Team Red wipes its ass with the qu'ran

  • PapayaSF||

    There is only one sane way to hang toilet paper: over the top. All else is insanity.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    Agreed, only slavers go under.

  • OneOut||

    "Swiss = Dem burger because half of them speak French and the French are pussies."

    A large portion of Democrats can't speak English much less French.

  • JoeyJMiller||

    Obviously Team Red eats all-beef hamburger with American cheese, while Team Blue eats cruelty-free organic local grass-fed beef with cheese imported from a European nation with socialized healthcare.

  • Juice||

    Are you saying it's less than libertarian to advocate a compassionate immigration policy? Oh, I get it. You're taking Reason to task for not going full-on libertarian and advocating totally open borders like they should.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    Well, the difference between the Cosmos and the Proggies is like the difference between the English and the Irish. Sure, maybe they can tell each other apart, but the rest of us couldn't tell the difference if they dropped dead in front of us.

  • Cytotoxic||

    That is incredibly stupid.

  • SlV||

    So the GOP will be more relevant if they get more Donkey in them.

    2016 Republican National Convention site? TIJUANA!

  • Juice||

    Hmmm. It looks like Jeb Bush is better on immigration than Rand Paul. That's probably the only thing, but it's worth noting.

  • Sudden||

    Jeb Bush made waves with his comments because he took a strong position—one that's at-odds with the large meathead faction of his party.

    The use of the meathead pejorative and the notion of painting opponents of full-scale amnesty as nativists, bigots, et al (all traditionally feelingz!1!!-oriented ad hominems leveled by progs) is unbecoming and highly inaccurate.

    The voices on the libertarian right that have some misgivings about complete amnesty and forfeiture of national sovereignty (the Pauls for example, and many a commenter here) are almost always rooted not in some collectivist notion of immigrants as the "dirty other" but rather rooted in a basic understanding of the social welfare state and the various and sundry social welfare costs of importation and legalization of an entire underclass of foreigners.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I certainly don't see any holes in the argument that a fucked up welfare system is a good basis to deny people their basic human right to free movement.

  • Homple||

    The welfare state will bankrupt the country anyway, let's open the Southwestern border to full bore third world immigration and hasten the process so we get to see sooner what happens next.

  • Paul.||

    You know, while I certainly understand the frustration with illegal immigrants getting welfare benefits when paying little or nothing into the system, I think the amount of benefits they receive pales in comparison to what all the clean-cut white folks are getting.

    The occasional illegal immigrant getting a food stamp, or even a one-time emergency medical care writeoff pales is probably small potatoes compared to the citizen getting on permanent disability at age 28.

  • Homple||

    Agreed, and how long before the immigrants, like the clean cut white folks and others before them, wise up to fact that it's nicer to suck on the government teat than work on roofs in 100 degree weather, or do other ill paid hard labor?

    Bring in the next wave of illegals, I guess.

  • ||

    how long before the immigrants, like the clean cut white folks and others before them, wise up to fact that it's nicer to suck on the government teat than work on roofs in 100 degree weather

    Legal status opens up a whole host of benefits that illegal immigrants currently either don't qualify for or can only access by proxy. So I imagine a large amnesty would probably wise a lot of them up real quick like. Legal status also carries with it access to all the "benefits" of American law, meaning no more working on those roofs without a safety harness and a spotter, or for anything less than $8/hr, or without health insurance benefits, etc etc. It boggles my mind that employers benefiting from illegal labor precisely because of the ability to dodge the onerous regulations of the labor market would be lobbying congress to take away the entire advantage those workers provide.

  • Juice||

    You know, while I certainly understand the frustration with illegal immigrants getting welfare benefits when paying little or nothing into the system

    How many of them are actually doing this?

  • Hawk Spitui||

  • Juice||

    I didn't see anything on your link about illegal immigrants.

  • ||

    Bearing in mind that it's difficult to collect data on illegal immigrants for the rather obvious reason that they tend not to go through official channels, there's this. Something tells me you're not going to get past the headline though.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    You know, while I certainly understand the frustration with illegal immigrants getting welfare benefits when paying little or nothing into the system,

    While I disagree with many Reason writers and commenters here in not thinking people who oppose open borders are xenophobic, but you are spot on here.

    The last thing illegals want to do is interact with the US system in any way at all - yet the simply act of buying gum, they will pay taxes.

    Additionally - our birth rates are declining like Europe's and other western countries.

    Regardless of the pressures this puts on a social system which pays a great deal of benefits to the aged population, this trend will also mean a declining economic dynamism/innovation.

    It's not that old people are incapable or anything like that - but their motivation to succeed and continue pushing for better wains as they move into retirement and seek other goals.

    There is zero reason to think this trend will reverse, but there is a solution. We can import the young - which we are doing so illegally - we just need a sane border policy which doesn't look at an IT industry who needs another 500,000 visas, but only allows 85K.

    & since the government has never and will never pick goals remotely close to economic needs - we should end most restrictions on entry and make the process to get into the country easier (with background checks and such).

  • Michael S. Langston||

    To add - we'd be much safer under this system as well.

    As by making the system difficult and overly complex, everyone, even decent people, will try the illegal route.

    By making it easier and less complicated, only the people we should worry about will take the illegal route; making directing resources at them easier.

    Additionally by making the system easier, some stupid people, criminal and what not, will get caught trying to go through the easy system - better to take their chances with the background check than the desert.

    All of which would make us safer, increase are hopes for the future, and help the US as well as those immigrants who succeed.

    Which is why we will NEVER do it.

  • Tonio||

    Homple, it is not just the Southwestern border, but all our borders, particularly the Southern border. Please consider the Haitian, other caribbeans and others who float to our shores and territorial waters.

    But, srsly, these people are hard workers, and willing to do the jobs that many native-born are unwilling to do.

  • ||

    For that matter, half of all illegal immigrants present in the country are here on visa overstays. A fact that often gets overlooked, particularly when its inconvenient to browbeating people for hating messicans.

  • Juice||

    our shores

    So...collectivist?

  • Homple||

    Why does nobody here ever mention the Eastern border, where Swedes, Irish, Germans, Poles, Hungarians used to enter?,Why is it third world all the way down at Reason?

  • Cytotoxic||

    DEY TRK R JERBS

  • Paul.||

    But what if they free-move wrong? Shouldn't there be a benevolent hand of God Government to help them make informed choices?

  • Sudden||

    I'm sure you kindly explain the notion of the basic human right to free movement every time you encounter a no trespassing sign. And it must be grand getting a free season pass to Disneyland by asserting one's basic human right to free movement when walking through the gate.

  • Juice||

    This lame argument conflating private property with national borders crops up in every single fucking immigration debate.

  • Homple||

    Explain why it's lame? "You're a stoopyhead incapable of following my genius level argument", or "jerbz", or "statist" are insufficiently precise for consideration.

  • Cytotoxic||

    We're tired of explaining Liberty 101 to you boneheads. I'd like to think this is wanton stupidity on your part.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Because it counters the lame argument that imaginary lines on the ground should not impede the free movement of people, which is often made in most fucking immigration debates by the open borders crowd.

  • BigT||

    their basic human right to free movement

    stops, where my property begins. In this case, the property held in common with my fellow citizens.

  • ||

    *barf*

  • Virginian||

    Isn't it really really great when right wingers become commies to keep the foreigners out?

  • BigT||

    Do you own a house with your spouse? Are you a commie? People can co-own things.

    If we through the government don't own the country, how does any one person legitimately own any piece of land? And why can't someone else take it from you.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If we through the government don't own the country, how does any one person legitimately own any piece of land?

    Here's the kicker. In these United States, you don't. You see, at an early juncture in our history, the government decided that the Federal government was the ultimate common law landholder, thus a private citizen can only hold land in fee simple title. Otherwise, the government wouldn't have the right of eminent domain. When they pulled this bullshit, Thomas Jefferson spat blood and put up a valiant defense (skip to the 3rd paragraph from the end) but to no avail. The colonial title systems were transferred to the new republic intact.

  • prolefeed||

    If we through the government don't own the country, how does any one person legitimately own any piece of land?

    Whenever I hear "government" I substitute "mafia", and see what logical error the speaker has lapsed into:

    "If we through the mafia don't own the country, how does any one person legitimately own any piece of land?"

    You're welcome!

  • Calidissident||

    How is a voluntary decision to co-own a piece of property with another person equivalent to the notion that all 300 million citizens automatically co-own everything?

  • anon||

    the property held in common

    Fuck you, go bite off your own dick. You and I own nothing together fuckwad.

  • ||

    This is one of the few cases where ROADZ!! actually is a logical counter-argument. You and I and a whole bunch of other people own a hell of a lot of shit in common, like it or not, regardless of how many epithets you can come up with to emphasize your point.

  • anon||

    A road does not need defense from "OMG MEXICANS!"

  • Juice||

    You don't own the roads. I don't own the roads. We don't own the roads. We're just forced to pay for them.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    This is one of the few cases where ROADZ!! actually is a logical counter-argument. You and I and a whole bunch of other people own a hell of a lot of shit in common, like it or not,

    No, we don't. The government stopped being "We, the People" a long time ago.

  • ||

    Rationalize it any way that makes you feel better, but the reality is you're part of a collective and you're paying for a lot of things that you then access on equal terms as everybody else who is part of the collective. You're more than welcome to hate that fact and do everything you can to change it, but calling people names for pointing it out is juvenile.

  • Juice||

    Rationalize it any way that makes you feel better, but the reality is that you're not really a partner in some collective. A milk cow isn't a partner in the farm.

  • prolefeed||

    but the reality is you're part of a collective and you're paying for a lot of things that you then access on equal terms as everybody else who is part of the collective

    You apparently haven't been on the receiving end of waiting, along with a couple thousand of your fellow fractional slaves, upwards of an hour so that a presidential motorcade can zip through unencumbered.

    That experience mightily clarifies who owns the road. Hint: it ain't the folks kept waiting.

  • Calidissident||

    I love how much, on this issue, the rhetoric of conservatives, and libertarians with conservative leanings, mirrors leftist arguments on everything. Tony could have written the exact same posts that PM or BigT have written in this thread.

  • Virginian||

    The thing about immigration is that few people have a problem with "their" immigrants. Everyone likes their maid, their gardener, their nanny, their coworkers, their local Mexican or Chinese or Vietnamese restaurateur.

    It's always the "other" immigrants who ought to be deported.

  • ||

    Tony could have written the exact same posts that PM or BigT have written in this thread.

    Coming from you, that's hilarious as fuck.

    That aside, pointing out that we are involuntarily part of a collective is not the same as validating or defending it. So saying "fuck you, suck your own cock hurrr durrrr" is a pretty stupid thing to say when somebody says that government property is collectively owned. In any other context, referring to government as an involuntary collective usually isn't all that controversial.

  • Calidissident||

    "Coming from you, that's hilarious as fuck."

    That's supposed to mean, what exactly? Hurr durr cosmotarian? Who are you, SIV? When have I ever posted something that could be mistaken for one of Tony's posts?

    "That aside, pointing out that we are involuntarily part of a collective is not the same as validating or defending it."

    It is when you're using that to justify your position on an issue. Which is most certainly what BigT was doing, and if that wasn't what your point was, then why say it? It doesn't even make sense if you're just saying "Hey, we're just pointing it out," because BigT, who people were originally responding to, was not just pointing it out, but treating it as a just situation and one that justifies his position on this issue.

    I agree that the name calling by anon was juvenile and unnecessary.

  • ||

    When have I ever posted something that could be mistaken for one of Tony's posts?

    Eh, suffice to say I think you and Tony would get along a lot better IRL than me and Tony.

    ...and if that wasn't what your point was, then why say it?

    Because calling bullshit on the statement:

    You and I own nothing together fuckwad.

    Doesn't require me to agree with the argument that somebody else tied to it? anon's statement was a stand-alone statement, my reply was a stand-alone statement. The borders represent a classic commons problem doesn't really say anything about immigration policy in and of itself. Territorial waters represent the same commons problem, but it doesn't say anything about import tariffs, for example. My only bitch was in asserting that we don't own anything collectively. Like it or not, we do, and the things we own collectively, due to the magic of democracy, are subject to the whim of 50%+1 of every yahoo with access to a voting booth.

  • Calidissident||

    "Eh, suffice to say I think you and Tony would get along a lot better IRL than me and Tony."

    I don't think Tony would get along well with anyone here. He seems like a pretty miserable person to be around.

    Regardless, I wasn't saying you or anyone else = Tony or is a progressive. I'm just saying that your post (or BigT's, or a lot of conservative arguments on the issue) literally read like they would have been written by Tony. I don't care if you're only "describing reality" (which isn't even the case. You and I don't own shit. The government does. That's not remotely the same thing as us owning it). Tony pulls that stunt all the time - "You silly libertarians, this is how the world is, therefore X"

  • ||

    The use of the meathead pejorative and the notion of painting opponents of full-scale amnesty as nativists, bigots, et al (all traditionally feelingz!1!!-oriented ad hominems leveled by progs) is unbecoming and highly inaccurate.

    That's the way to get people on your side, after all. Tell them they are racist meany-pants poopy heads.

  • MSD62581||

    Rand isn't too bad. He's made the case for border security but also said that immigrants who work are welcome.

  • ||

    Which is a nondescript way of saying nothing that appeases both camps on the issue.

  • SlV||

    Yes but Rand doesn't support the Big Government,E-verify, path-to-citizenship,high skilled and educated-restrictive, bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform plan like Reason Jeb Bush.

  • Virginian||

    I have to say I do find it very interesting that supposed libertarians favor some kind of new massive federal program with a corresponding database and thousands of new federal "workers" because "nativists are bad mmmmmkay".

    Like, how the fuck does a new federal department/agency advance liberty in any way shape or form.

  • C. Anacreon||

    agreed

  • ||

    I don't think there's a single libertarian who actually supports E-Verify, even though Reason's editorial stance is to agree to anything that will keep the filthy racist hordes from persecuting teh messicans.

  • Virginian||

    It just seems to me like supporting some kind of McCain authored, named in honor of Ted Kennedy immigration "reform" bill is like all the people who said "the school system sucks, we have to do something, therefore No Child Left Behind is a good thing."

  • SlV||

    Exactly.With all the policy pragmatism of Reason/Cato you don't see any proposals for a meaningful reduction in spending and bureaucracy/gov hires in immigration. Quite the opposite in fact.

  • Calidissident||

    Didn't Reason write an article yesterday criticizing the GOP for offering up immigration reforms based around stuff like E-Verify?

  • ||

    Didn't Reason write an article yesterday criticizing the GOP for offering up immigration reforms based around stuff like E-Verify?

    Yes, but they've endorsed legislation that includes it in the very recent past.

  • Calidissident||

    How recent? I've been reading Reason for about two years, and while they've always been very supportive of the concept of immigration reform in that time, I cannot recall them endorsing a specific piece of legislation that included it. Am I mistaken or are you referring to something earlier? It's important to keep in mind that Reason has a bunch of different contributors, and that if every writer's views represented the entity's as a whole, then Reason would be a very confused being with contradictory views on a lot of issues (for example, Welch and Suderman criticized the GOP's tactics during the shutdown, while Gillespie defended them)

  • Calidissident||

    *By "it," I mean E-Verify

  • ||

    I can't seem to track it down now on Google, but I believe last year Gillespie wrote a piece endorsing the then-current immigration reform bill getting kicked around congress, which included E-Verify. Of course Gillespie doesn't necessarily represent the views of every writer at Reason, but he is the editor for the online portion of the mag, so I think one could say his views are reflective of Reason's editorial stance.

  • SlV||

    They dance around endorsing comprehensive reform by praising pols who favor it and comdening (most) who oppose it. One thing you won't get in any analysis of the proposed "reform" is Republicans are basically fine with doing away with H1bs and replacing them with green cards. The Dems are all "they tuk er jerbz!" on any meaningful reform of the existing legal immigration system other than amnesty for those already here. There is no negotiation on that for some fucking protectionist (of the right people's jobs) reason and instead they are willing to "compromise" on things which spend money like more Homeland Security and crony fence contracts that don't get built. Shikha Dalmia has actually opposed relaxing immigration standards on merit and wants infirm-family first chain-migration to get precedence.

    There are a whole lot of better alternatives to the proposed immigration reform short of open borders (which aren't on the table, obviously). They are politically doable too (and would force Team Blue to show their true protectionist/nativist hand) just by doing reform piecemeal rather than as a "comprehensive" big government package.

  • Hyperion||

    What the fuck fascist pig doesn't like cilantro?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    To some people, it tastes like soapy water. I pity them.

  • ||

    People like that are even worse than people who watch Game of Thrones but haven't read the books.

  • Sudden||

    Or people who call cardboard with cheese and tomato sauce on it "pizza"

  • Homple||

    You've not experienced artisanal cardboard?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    If I ever have time to read another book, it's at the top of my list. I haven't started watching for that reason.

  • Paul.||

    There were books?

  • Cytotoxic||

    I tried reading the first book after watching the show. It just seemed kinda tedious.

  • Virginian||

    To some people, it tastes like soapy water. I pity them.

    Yeah from what I've heard it's an amazing, awesome, wonderful flavor.....to those who can taste it properly.

    Tastes like soapy water to me.

  • ||

    Sounds to me like you aren't separating out the outside coarser leaves.

  • anon||

    If I've got to sort a vegetable before I eat it, is it really a vegetable or is it just a pain in the ass?

  • Virginian||

    Maybe. But I doubt every restaurant and person who's ever cooked with cilantro for me was also making that mistake.

    It's not like a total soap flavor, just an unpleasant note. Like, if something has cilantro I'll just eat it, but I won't order that dish the next time I come in.

  • anon||

    Ever consider that maybe it's the dishes (I mean that literally, like the plates themselves) just have soap on them?

    Maybe you need to give the dishwasher guy a handy every now and then?

  • SlV||

    Cilantro loses its flavor before it browns or turns to mush. I love it fresh but it loses flavor fast. Then I can taste a hint of soap.

  • prolefeed||

    Sounds like he does not have the genes to appreciate cilantro.

    The soapy thing is actually DNA based.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Wait, people don't like cilantro? Yeah, um, those would be pod people. Don't fall asleep near them or their, er, pods.

  • Virginian||

    For some people, it honestly does taste like soap. I'm one of them.

    Hey, can we get this classified as a protected class by the .gov?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    IIRC, it's a recessive gene . Food science companies sell taste test strips that can test for it.

  • Virginian||

    So I have a genetic condition which leads me to be discriminated against?

    Where the fuck is my check then?

  • ||

    Join the ranks of the color blind, sucker. Practically every website, movie, app, you name it discriminates against us. I've been waiting for my check for years but it hasn't come yet. Of course, I'd rather taste cilantro than see color properly. It's that delicious.

  • anon||

    see color properly.

    You fucking racist.

  • ||

    I'm so racist I think people with green eyes are a different species.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    A species that I would gladly have sex with. (No homo)

  • anon||

    Well, gingers usually have green eyes. So I'd say you're right in those cases.

  • Pro Libertate||

    "Boy, you know, I wish these were in color. Because what I really am sort of in the mood for is a girl with green eyes. And price is no object, Mrs. O'Toole. Fresh off the boat's the way I like them. The more exotic, the better."

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    Big Trouble quotes are always relevant.

  • John||

    You are Italian Episiarch. Human beings are a different species from you.

  • ||

    Hey, I'm not Sicilian for fuck's sake!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Don't knock the Sicilians. They have better food and organized crime.

  • Juice||

    For some people broccoli tastes bitter.

  • BigT||

    Yes, families often develop traditions of "public service" as one generation passes on a taste to the next for living off of others without producing anything of value for which people might willingly pay: Adams, Roosevelt, Taft—and now Bush and Clinton.

    Kennedy's: What are we, mashed potatoes?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Only one Kennedy president, thank God.

  • From the Tundra||

    So far. Isn't Caroline being groomed for greatness in Japan, or something?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Emperor? I dunno, I think they prefer native Japanese for that role.

    For those among you who think another Bush or Clinton is a good idea, let me remind you of how long it's taken to scrape the Kennedys off our heel.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I'd vote for Kennedy for president in a heartbeat.

  • anon||

    We're talking about the naked one right?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Riding to the Capitol naked on a horse would be the best inauguration ever.

  • PH2050||

    Don't thank God. Thank my plane sabotage skills and thank Ted's penchant for booze.

  • ||

    If Ted Kennedy drove a Volkswagon...

  • lap83||

    A strong position? Really? What did he actually say that would qualify? "Let's love illegal immigrants when they mean well and have families" sounds like something said by a 4 year old prepped by Dems for a political ad.

  • Hyperion||

    Have the squirrels won?

  • Raven Nation||

    Yes, families often develop traditions of "public service" as one generation passes on a taste to the next for living off of others without producing anything of value for which people might willingly pay: Adams

    Really? John Adams produced nothing of value?

  • Irish||

  • anon||

    Funny how even though those goalposts move, the argument never changes.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Huffington Post disagrees

    Best comment:

    Msgirlintn Msgirlintn (msgirlintn)
    The last chapter on ObamaCARES has been written. It was written on Election Day, 2012 when the voters rejected Romney's plan to repeal the law and the President vowed to implement it.

    The last chapter was written when Americans began going to the exchanges and selecting healthcare for the first time in ages.

    Republicans had 5 yrs to come up with a plan to "replace" ObamaCARES. They did nothing, but hold over 50 votes in the House to repeal the law. They keep saying that they have a "better plan" but even Republicans in elected office can decide what that plan would be.

    Over 10 million more people have healthcare now. The rate of the uninsured in this country is lower than it has been since 2008.

    The ACA reduces the deficit, provides healthcare for Americans and provides assurances that Americans have never had before with any healthcare package.

    Republicans put all of their eggs in the same basket and thought that repealing ObamaCARES would be a way to win elections in 2014. But Americans had another idea. Americans are now learning that all of those doom and gloom stories that they heard from Republicans were just doom and gloom stories that were never true.

    Calling it 'ObamaCARES' adds a creepy cult of personality flavor to it, doesn't it?

  • ||

    That reads like a prepared speech given by someone who is filming the last minutes before they all drink their "juice" and go to "sleep" in anticipation of the alien vessel picking them up before the end of the world.

  • Raven Nation||

    Especially since Pelosi declared that calling it Obamacare was racist.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Holy shit:

    Jack W. (pye1000)
    SUPER USER·656 Fans·Good night and good luck
    bravo....great post...............f/f...................keep the faith

    Also this:

    Barrington S. (JAGold)
    1
    92 Fans
    Excellent!! But ... you forgot three things, which are:
    1) Obamacare has created thousands of jobs; some temporary, some part-time, but many are long-term regular jobs with decent pay and benefits
    2) The for profit health/medical insurance industry has expanded and improved with more options and more providers to offer health/medical insurance policies … competition is good for the economy, industry and the people
    3) Suddenly, by June 30, 2014, at least 3 million 'unexpected' premium paying clients shall fill the financial coffers of the health/medical insurance businesses and make them millions of dollars richer ... that is good for this economy
    8 APR 2:26 PM
  • anon||

    bravo....great post...............f/f...................keep the faith

    Holy fucking shit.

    I should just eat lead now.

  • John||

    If there is a more sure mark of retardation than being a "Huffpost Super User", I can't think of it.

  • Juice||

    The chaser is that Obamacare has lowered the number of uninsured?

  • Virginian||

    They seriously argue that all the people whose policies were canceled because of the evil insurance companies are now covered thanks to Obamacare.

    It's progtard logic.

  • anon||

    Jeb Bush in no way took a "strong" position. He's a fucking pussy, and yet Reason gets down to suck his cock because ... wait, why exactly?

    Why would anyone praise this jackass for not even taking a half-limp stance on a subject that needs to be moved to disproving the arguments against open borders anyways?

  • ||

    He's feeling the right feelz and telling people those feelz, which is brave and strong and laudable. At the end of the day, what you do, what you think, and how you defend your positions intellectually isn't all that important. Just show us your feelz!

    It's the kind of twaddle you fully expect from HuffPo or Kos, but FFS, we really should get a little more out of a magazine with the cheek to call itself REASON. Even Shikha's immigration pieces manage to fit in some actual argumentation between the epithets and emotions.

  • Hawk Spitui||

  • Hyperion||

    I have a lot to say about immigration, but I'm going to limit it to this , for now.

    Anyone who no experience with or knowledge about this, please STFU (Tulpa).

    The process of coming here to live legally, is extremely draconian. Almost to the extent that no one would believe it unless they have experienced it themselves.

    About the only way that it can be done, is to either have a work visa and be able to maintain it long term, which is not easy, or be married to an American citizen.

    I know, I won't say friends, because I don't have any in that status, that are here illegally. They all work, and as far as I know, none of them receive state assistance or benefits of any kind. But I probably wouldn't know, even if it were so.

    And finally, anyone who wants to immigrate here, had better pray to the invisible sky gods that congress does not 'fix' the immigration laws. It's already FUBAR.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    The process of coming here to live legally, is extremely draconian. Almost to the extent that no one would believe it unless they have experienced it themselves.

    To which I say, tough shit. If you don't like the immigration laws, don't come here. We don't have an obligation to allow *any* immigration, under any circumstances.

  • Virginian||

    To which I say, tough shit. If you don't like the immigration laws regulations, don't come here open a business. We don't have an obligation to allow *any* immigration capitalism, under any circumstances.
  • anon||

    To which I say, tough shit. If you don't like the immigration laws, don't come here. We don't have an obligation to allow *any* immigration, under any circumstances.

    Except to the entire basic premise of Liberty.

  • Hyperion||

    How did you get here, Murikan? Did the Good Murikan Fairy deliver your special family here right after the big bang?

  • Virginian||

    I don't think Spitui is Murican.

  • Hyperion||

    His twin retard, or Tulpa?

  • ||

    To which I say, tough shit.

    "I got mine, fuck anyone else."

    I really, really hope you get fucked as hard as possible in this type of way in the near future.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    Given that I don't have much interest in imposing myself on someone else's country, that's not bloody likely.

  • ||

    I figured you didn't have the capacity to understand my point: I hope you get fucked as hard as possible by some kind of situation where you want in (I don't care if it's a country or a country club or a job) and you get frozen out by those who got in first. Just desserts, as it were.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    I agree. What's wrong with the people who built and support the country, the country club or the company deciding who else they let in? None of them owe me the time of day.

  • Cytotoxic||

    One of those things isn't like the other, asshole.

  • John||

    It is exactly that. But so what? Since when is getting yours a bad thing?

  • Calidissident||

    Good to see John defending our resident "neoreactionary."

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Or maybe he's just pointing out that motives aren't relevant debate factors...

    Nah - you're right - he just luvs himself sum 'Murican

    Just like a good debate tactic is adhoms mixed with guilt by association.

  • Homple||

    Nothing wrong with simplifying the immigration laws and making their enforcement consistent and quick, is there? This is preferable to a new layer of complex law that just opens the borders, some think.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I prefer freedom.

  • ||

    About the only way that it can be done, is to either have a work visa and be able to maintain it long term, which is not easy, or be married to an American citizen.

    Don't forget: be educated out the ass. If you've got anything less than a masters you might as well not bother.

  • Hyperion||

    And just WHO the fuck is WE? I was born here, asshole, and I am not part of your WE.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Are you... seeking? the grail of citizenship?

  • anon||

    Will someone please explain to me how those of us that want TEAM AMERICA to quit blowing shit up around the world are considered "isolationists," yet the same people that label us that refuse to consider the benefits of open borders?

  • ||

    I don't know that the two groups you're referring to are actually the same people, even though they're represented by the same party. The Neocon contingent of the republican party is pretty cool with both open borders and blowing shit up. The Buchanan wing is more like you describe, but becoming less and less relevant every day.

  • Calidissident||

    Are neocons the only ones in the Republican party who support what anon describes? If so, then virtually the entire party is composed of neocons. What you describe may be true for the died-in-the-wool neocons, but the average Republican politician or voter is both generally supportive of US military intervention abroad, and opposed to open borders and/or amnesty.

  • ||

    The neocon wing pretty well owns the Republican party at a leadership level. Bear in mind that Bush was pushing for an amnesty bill at the height of the Iraq war in 2006. The current leadership supports the proposed reform being discussed now. The party rank and file are more as anon describes though (which is why Bush didn't get the bill he wanted). However, now that Bush is out of office, the taste for war among the rank and file seems to have simmered a bit.

  • Calidissident||

    Ok. I agree with that take, I just thought it should be pointed out that not every one who supports military intervention abroad is accurately best-described as neocon, even if they have similar foreign policy views. As anon didn't use the term "neocon," I think his take was pretty accurate, which you see to agree with as long as it's not aimed at the GOP leadership (which I still wouldn't say is pro-open borders, even if they are open to amnesty and possibly a guest worker program given the right concessions)

  • sarcasmic||

    Because isolationism has two distinct meanings. One refers to staying out of foreign entanglements (a good thing in my view), the other as an economic term that describes policies that artificially inflate the cost of anything foreign (mercantilism). They are mutually exclusive.

    They call us isolationists in the military meaning of the word, while themselves being isolationists in the economic meaning of the word.

    Then when we call them isolationists in the economic sense of the word, they get all indignant because to them we're the isolationists.

  • ||

    It's isolationists all the way down.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    They are not mutually exclusive - the global community, shipping lanes, etc, is a dangerous place.

    There is no such thing as global trade without global security. & so far, the US Navy is the only organization large enough, and hands off enough, to both keep open economic systems while not preventing free movement of 99.999% of all goods.

    SLD: Just because this is true, does not mean I'm in favor of current, past, recent, discussed, or future military engagements.

  • Hyperion||

    BTW, OT:

    Did anyone here that Murland passed a MJ decriminalization law and also will allow medical MJ business and growers for special cronies of the gubner and his criminal gang?

    The decrim law is especially weak. 10 grams or less will require only a civil fine. 11 grams still gets you a criminal record.

    Still, I am shocked that any of this passes in the PRM.

  • anon||

    This is AMURKA. I hereby declare the law unconstitutional because metric system.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    I'm beyond confused with this Tuesday imbibalation. What is Murland and does the PRM stand for Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration...

  • sarcasmic||

    Whoever administers these comments needs to get off the bottle. Literally. Stop the sherry enemas. Sit on something other than on top of a bottle of nasty wine that is so unfit for consumption that you stick it up your ass.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    What are you saying, man? WHO administers comments anywhere? What are you demanding? And why is it relevant? And who does sherry enemas? And why would someone stick an unfit bottle of wine up their ass? Why?! You fucking Tusken Raider of the reason threads!

  • Agile Cyborg||

    The message I can empathize with.

    The Bush aspect I'm literally ready to just fucking retch like a jackhammer. Bush = jackhammer puke. I could literally cut stainless steel with my retch at the sound of 'Bush'. Like a jet-stream of metal-slicing horror right from my mouth into fabrication process. I could cut Barbie doll shapes from inch-thick acrylic with my vomit if induced with the word 'bush'.

  • Homple||

    All you need is love
    (dot da da da)

  • SlV||

    The first two sucked really bad despite coming off as reasonable decent men of good character. Expect the same or worse from another.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Contemplating another Clinton - Bush election makes me think... with that election (assuming they both win their nominations which I doubt at this point) - wouldn't we really be saying as a country, that out of ~320 million citizens, and 25+ years, we could only find good presidential candidates from mostly two families?

    Seriously - there's no one else anywhere?

    Though again - I find this unlikely...but it would be the topping on this cake that is the voting public - I mean what else says "let's move forward" like redoing the 1992 election?

  • ||

    Does anyone else think he looks like the cute munchkin version of W?

  • ibcbet||

    maybe they can tell each other apart, but the rest of us couldn't tell the difference if they dropped dead in front of us.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement