George H.W. Bush

Jeb Bush Is Right About Immigration

|

Jeb and Columba Bush at some event for rich people.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has delighted the establishment media with his comments about Ronald Reagan and the modern Republican Party. 

The son and brother of Presidents Bush and Bush claims The Gipper "would have a hard time" in a contemporary GOP that is hamstrung by "an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement." According to Bush, Reagan "would be criticized for doing the things that he did." 

While this kind of skylarking should always be viewed with suspicion, Bush is accurate in saying presumed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's immigration stance is far more punitive than Reagan's was. According to his own literature, Romney mildly supports skilled-worker immigration and not much else. Romney's plan: 

  • Raise visa caps for highly skilled workers
  • Grant permanent residency to eligible graduates with advanced degrees in math, science, and engineering
  • Secure The Border
  • Turn Off The Magnets
  • Enforce The Law
  • Oppose Amnesty

In a 1980 debate, Dutch is very far from this law and order view. In clear agreement with the "sensitive" policy and looser work rules favored by George H.W. Bush, his last primary opponent (who would soon become his running mate and vice president), Reagan says he wants to "open the border both ways." 

Of course all Bushes are socialists in their hearts, and Jeb's support for a "bipartisan" budget deal (for balance he accuses Democrats of giving short shrift to Wisconsin GOP Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to balance the budget in 51 years) drew a well-deserved rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist: 

"That's foolish," Norquist told TPM in an interview. "It's stup—it's bizarre."

Norquist, a prominent critic of the senior President Bush but a frequent ally of the second President Bush, seemed less than impressed by Jeb Bush.

"There's a guy who watched his father throw away his presidency on a 2:1 [ratio of spending cuts to tax increases] promise," Norquist said. "And he thinks he's sophisticated by saying that he'd take a 10:1 promise. He doesn't understand — he's just agreed to walk down the same alley his dad did with the same gang. And he thinks he's smart. You walk down that alley, you don't come out. You certainly don't come out with 2:1 or 10:1."

This is the part that the media love. It's a favorite refrain of the left that Reagan wouldn't be rightwing enough for today's Republican extremists. 

But the idea that immigration divides along left/right presumes there is only a two-dimensional continuum in political thought. On immigration, Reagan was more liberal than today's Republicans (and every era's labor unions) because he was more libertarian on freedom of contract and the right to work. Interestingly, in 1980 it was George Bush who made this point more clearly. 

NEXT: Has President Obama's Stimulus Made the Private Sector Lazy and Hurt Job Growth?

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.

  1. Yes, Jeb is. But he dashed any hopes he had for higher office when he sided with Obama on higher taxes to arrest the debt his dumb bigger brother accumulated.

    Plus he admitted Reagan could not get nominated today by the nutcase GOP.

    Say goodbye to Jeb (the smart one).

    Neil was next – we elected the stupid Bush Brother – see Billy Baldwin for comparison.

    1. …said shrike, who sides with Obama on a minute-by-minute basis…

      1. Oh, forgot to introduce you properly. My bad.

        *ahem*

        Hey, everyone, looky here! Another quality, insightful post by Hillary’s Strap-on!

      2. Did YOU edit the Harvard Law Review?

        1. Me? Hell, no… I value my soul, therefore I would never attend law school.

          Or run for president on either Team.

        2. I am saying that correctly, right? Something tells me that Harvard credentials aren’t going to be that important to lefties now that Romney has two degrees from the place.

          1. That’s shrike for ya, Skip… he claims to be The Biggest Barry Goldwater Fanboy Evah, but he’s gonna vote Team Blue this fall.

            1. I only vote for the most SECULAR capitalist on the ballot.

              I weight the two equally.

              Think Buffett. Or Gates, Soros, Jobs (RIP) or Brin or Ellison etc

              I don’t listen to rednecks on money!

              1. So, you’re going to vote for Christ-worshipping Obama, right?

                1. Seriously, shrike… Romney, or Obama? BOTH of them fail your secular litmus test.

                  You’d have to vote for a pure-as-a-vacuum atheist, to meet your self-stated goals.

                  You hate anyone with even a smidgen of spirituality, of ANY kind. Therefore, you should hew to those standards, and not vote for ANY politician with ANY level of God-fearingness, or even Gaia-huggingability.

                  Give it up. Even Goldwater didn’t meet your “I hate religion” standards.

                2. You don’t know the meaning of “secular”.

                  1. “I don’t listen to rednecks on money!”

                    Paul Krugman is a redneck?

                  2. You don’t know the meaning of “secular”.

                    Obama talks more about god and faith then Romney does.

                    1. Good call, joshua.

                      shrike, by all rights, should disavow Obama on that point alone.

                3. FIFY, you’re going to short circuit his poor little brain if you keep pointing out his hypocrisy. Tone it down a bit.

                  1. But it’s fun!!!

                    Seriously, I’m all for separating church and state. But no one could live up to shrike’s demands in that department… hell, all the churches would have to be torched, just for openers.

                    1. It’s easier if you remember that shrike is a spoof.

                    2. I disagree… shrike has always existed, and can’t stay away.

                      Even with all those left-winger websites out there, he STILL gets drawn back here.

                    3. Remember when he specifically went after Baptists as the worse of the worse…

                      Then we pointed out that MLK and Bill Clinton were Baptists.

                      Good times.

                    4. Stupid bastard thinks I don’t know what “secular” means, too.

                      Hell, I’m all for it. I don’t care if politicians have religious leanings – as long as they keep said leanings out of their policy-making decisions.

                      That includes The Religion of Socialism, too.

                    5. Plus, I know how to use the term “racism” properly.

                      Also, fried chicken.

                    6. Fify you forgot cool aid, and grape pop, and watermelons

                    7. or was it grape cool aid, tang and watermelons, fuck there are too many stereotypes to remember

          2. And to some folks, Obama’s Harvard degree is a reason to hate him, while Romney’s two degrees is a reason to love him.

            Hypocrisy knows no political bounds.

            1. I don’t think anybody hated Obama for going to Harvard. Just that its not a substitution for actual success and brainpower post-college.

              1. Affirmative action admittance devalues his attendance.

        3. I am saying that correctly, right? Something tells me that Harvard credentials aren’t going to be that important to lefties now that Romney has two degrees from the place.

          1. Romney has two degrees, built a multi-million dollar private sector business and, later in life, was elected governor. Obama has a degree that gives affirmative action a very bad name.

            1. And Romney’s “plan” is to cut taxes and raise federal spending.

              What a fucking worthless POS he is. He is Dumbya but with a Mormon twist.

              1. here’s all you need to know about Obama and his alleged intelligence: he “inherited” roughly the same conditions as did Reagan, whose alma mater was the opposite of Ivy. One man took steps that led to two decades of economic growth. The other, well, the other is a monument to affirmative action.

                1. Bullshit.

                  Reagan inherited an inflationary economy and Obama a depressed deflation economy.

                  Not at all alike.

                  1. yeah, okay – double digit inflation, a prime rate near 20%, unemployment higher than Obama managed to drive it, hostages in Iran. Reagan took a bad situation and improved it. Obama did the opposite, though in his mind, it looks like improvement.

                    1. … unemployment higher than Obama managed to drive it…

                      That’s only because Os labor department is cooking the books.

                      If the president had an R after his name you can be damn well sure that the media would be reporting that the real UE rate was 11.9% of 17%

                  2. Wow Shriek you’re right. Reagan had to contend with brutal and necessary monetary tightening Obama contends with the opposite. There not alike at all Obama has it super easy.

                  3. And who was president right before Reagan?

                    http://www.cartercenter.org/ne…..arter.html

                  4. Reagan inherited an inflationary economy and Obama a depressed deflation economy.

                    No, Reagan inherited a stagflationary economy and Obama took a depressed economy and made it a stagflationary one.

    2. Plus he admitted Reagan could not get nominated today by the nutcase GOP.

      A giant part of that is because Reagan didn’t have to contend with the South.

      The South came into the Reagan Coalition just like the blue collar union Reagan Democrats did. …but they weren’t supposed to take over the party.

      Reagan brought them into the coalition, but he never even threw them a bone to play with. Now they’ve effectively taken over the party, and the trick has been trying to get rid of them ever since.

      The GOP needs to scrape the South out of the bottom of its shoes.

      The South is killing the cause of tax cuts, spending cuts, free trade, and opposing the New Deal, regulation and entitlement spending. Their elections down there hinge on issues like Terry Schaivo.

      The problem isn’t the GOP. It’s the South. They need to go back to being Democrats like they always were before. They have more in common with the Democrats on economic issues anyway.

      1. The South has a bunch of idiots who admire Keynesian “economics”?

        1. The South doesn’t give a shit about the fundamentals of budget cutting, tax cutting, opposing government spending…

          Hell no. It’s a good ol’ boys take care of their people kind of place, and it’s been that way since before the Civil War.

          1. You threw me with the “They need to go back to being Democrats” bit, Ken.

            Democrats don’t believe in capitalism, unless it’s them making money. Anyone else making money, they’re against it.

            1. Democrats don’t believe in the capitalism, and the Republicans who used to be Southern Democrats don’t believe in capitalism either…

              That’s what caring about Terry Schaivo is all about! If you hear somebody say, I’d rather not have less spending if it means I have to stop bashing on gay marriage and immigrants? Then you’re talking about somebody who doesn’t really care about capitalism.

              George W. Bush is a perfect example of a Republican who should have been a Southern Democrat–in every way. Especially his economic (anti-capitalism) policy. His polices (from foreign policy to domestic economic policy) was virtually indistinguishable from that of Lyndon Johnson.

              George W. Bush expanded Medicare. Could he have done any more to be more like Lyndon Johnson? Compare him to Reagan or his father–and there wasn’t anything Republican about his economic policy at all.

              1. You’re preaching to someone who failed to vote for EITHER man named “George Bush”, Ken.

                1. Congratulations.

                  The South is still stuck and smelly in the GOP’s shoes.

              2. Buffett or Soros don’t believe in capitalism?

                I stopped reading after that knee-slapper.

                1. Fuck Buffett and Soros.

                  Especially the latter. That fucker deserves Two-fer Tuesday pineapple insertions in Hell.

                2. Buffett or Soros don’t believe in capitalism?

                  Which one of them is from the South again?

                  I wasn’t talking about Southern Iowa or Southern Hungary.

                  1. Buffett or Soros don’t believe in capitalism?

                    Or were you trying to suggest that Buffet and Soros favoring Democrats means that the Democrats are somehow actually a capitalist political party?!

                    Either way–what a dumb comment!

                  2. You got confused, so I’ll post these in order:

                    “Democrats don’t believe in capitalism, unless it’s them making money.”

                    “Buffett or Soros don’t believe in capitalism?”

                    Your response was to ask:

                    “Which one of them is from the South again?”

                    BUT WHO WAS PHONE?

                    1. “Or were you trying to suggest that Buffet and Soros favoring Democrats means that the Democrats are somehow actually a capitalist political party?!”

                      Ken Shultz

                      https://reason.com/blog/2012/06…..nt_3075237

            2. You threw me with the “They need to go back to being Democrats” bit, Ken.

              The South still thinks that our rights and our morality should be put up to a vote.

              That’s what Obama and the rest of the Democrats think too.

              That’s what the Democrats meant when they called themselves “Democrats”. Whatever the issue is, people’s rights, whatever, let’s just put it up to a vote, and the majority wins!

              Their natural place is in with the rest of the Democrats. They’re just one or two issues away from being Democrats anyway. Abortion and guns.

              That’s the only real difference between Republicans in the South and Democrats: abortion and guns.

              And neither one is an economic issue.

              1. I agree. Abortion should be a state-by-state issue, and guns should be legal for all Americans.

                1. That’s fine.

                  …but surely you can think of another reason not to support Democrats too, right?

                  1. Oh, plenty of reasons. Just as many as there are to not support Team Red.

                    1. One of the big problems I see right now? Is that the basic dynamic works this way: the Republicans vs. the Democrats boils down to the culture warriors against the socialists.

                      No matter which side wins? The capitalist non-culture warriors lose.

                      The capitalist non-culture warriors? Is there are better two term description for libertarians? We’re the ones losing here!

                      We libertarians would be much better off if the culture warriors in the South went back to the Democrats where they belong.

                      Then it would be the capitalists vs. the socialists. Or the capitalists vs. the culture warriors. Either way? We’d have a chance to win the capitalist debate every once in a while!

                      And that would be a BIG improvement.

                    2. We’d be really better off if a huge meteorite struck D.C., but that’s not likely to happen.

                    3. We’d be really better off if a huge meteorite struck D.C., but that’s not likely to happen.

                      I think the South going back to the Dems could happen. Certainly more likely than a meteorite…

                      If Obama loses, and some Democrat from the South challenges Romney on his unwillingness to tackle culture war issues, I could see South moving towards the Democrats again.

                    4. One of the big problems I see right now? Is that the basic dynamic works this way: the Republicans vs. the Democrats boils down to the culture warriors against the socialists.

                      Fucking please get a clue.

                      What have the culture warriors done in the last fifty years, other than resist socialist cultural imperialism?

                      Who’ve bought into the bullshit CA liberal paradigm so much that you can’t even see reality anymore.

                    5. There’s no question that there are plenty of swing voters in California and elsewhere who won’t vote for the Republican Party so long as they’re seen as a party of culture warriors.

                      When California swing voters vote for Democrats, it isn’t primarily becasue of what’s going on in California. It’s because they’re voting against whatever’s in the news coming out of the culture warriors’ mouths.

                      That wasn’t a problem back in Ford and Reagan’s day. But then the South wasn’t locked into the GOP fold before Reagan either. That’s why swing voters in California won’t vote for Republicans anymore. That’s why someone like Reagan couldn’t get nominated by the GOP anymore either…

                      It’s becasue of the South.

                    6. When California swing voters vote for Democrats, it isn’t primarily becasue of what’s going on in California. It’s because they’re voting against whatever’s in the news coming out of the culture warriors’ mouths.

                      Such as?

                      And your saying that the Republicans should abandon their one elector strength to appeal to voters that are too stupid to vote on issues that they can actually affect?

                      And if your premise is true, why hasn’t the libertarian or some other none-Southern tainted party risen in CA to challenge the obviously incompetent state Democrats?

                      Face it Ken, the state’s voters have a decided socialist bent, thanx to decades of crappy public school indoctrination and cultural factors that you want to ignore.

                    7. Such as?

                      Gay Marriage, Terry Schaivo, immigrant bashing, Santorum coming out against contraception,…

                      It’ll happen this cycle, too. Bringing them up is how candidates in the South win election.

                      And if your premise is true, why hasn’t the libertarian or some other none-Southern tainted party risen in CA to challenge the obviously incompetent state Democrats?

                      Single member districts is probably part of the answer.

                      Another is that there are no third-parties that aren’t tainted in swing voters’ minds in places like California. Libertarians are associated with immigrant bashing, racism, homophobia and other culture war issues–unfairly if you ask me.

                    8. 1) Gay Marriage has failed in every state that has had a popular vote on it.

                      Including CA.

                      Is it your position that people in CA that voted against Gay Marriage here refuse to vote for republicans here because republicans in the South also oppose Gay Marriage?

                      Cause, that’s a retarded position to take.

                      2) The Terry Shiavo brouhaha was a travesty and I would say that it was a major reason that republicans lost in 06 and 08 and also contributed to the rise of the Tea Party movement.

                      But the thing is that most of the douches pushing TS as an issue have been “purged” from elected office. Often through primaries by crazy TPers.

                      3) Rick Santorum, a catholic politician from PA, won states such as North Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota and Colorado in route to tying for a distant third place as republican nominee.

                      Including 4 of 12 states in the South.

                      He’s more a Midwestern candidate than a Southern one.

                      However, I will acknowledge that your ignorance and bias illustrates the effectiveness of socialists in CA at constructing strawmen excuses for their own failures.

                      They’ve convinced a confirmed libertarian such as yourself.

                    9. “What have the culture warriors done in the last fifty years, other than resist socialist cultural imperialism?”

                      Socialist cultural imperialism?

                      How does that work? Would we have the factories being run by the people, but fashion dictated by a king?

          2. so when in doubt, Ken resorts to stereotypical fuckbucketry. CA, IL, NY, and all of the other problem states are located in places not known as the South. And all the so-con squawking over contraception has come from the Catholics of the Northeast.

            The South doesn’t give a shit about the fundamentals of budget cutting, tax cutting, opposing government spending.

            that explains why folks from the North keep moving here..

            1. No shit.

              Ken’s just demonstrating how his mind has been poisoned by prolonged exposure to CAs socialist culture.

              Which fucking state cares more about budget cutting, tax cutting and lower government spending TX or CA. NY or SC, IL or MS?

          3. The South doesn’t give a shit about the fundamentals of budget cutting, tax cutting, opposing government spending…

            the tea party is pretty big in the south isn’t it?

            Rand and Ron are both southerners right?

            1. Did Ron Paul win the Republican nomination?

              I think I would have heard about that.

              You think some Republican president is going to decriminalize marijuana so long as the South is in the driver’s seat of the GOP?

            2. Ron’s from p-burgh, booya!

            3. “Tea Party” is a pretty broad thing. In SC, for example, the state’s Tea Partiers picked Santorum because he’s a Christian.

      2. Yours is an amazing post. Wires are crossed somewhere (I think).

        1. “(I think)”

          That’s a good one, shrike.

          Pull the other one… it has got bells on.

      3. The South is killing the cause of tax cuts, spending cuts, free trade, and opposing the New Deal, regulation and entitlement spending. Their elections down there hinge on issues like Terry Schaivo.

        We need to secede from wherever the hell assholes like Ken Shultz live.

        1. Which of those things are you against?

          Feel free to succeed. Especially if it’s in Texas. Jesus Christ–I’m not sure our country can survive another president like Lyndon Johnson or Bush Jr.

          1. Feel free to succeed.

            We will succeed when we secede ya dumb Yankee.

            1. I’m from the South.

              I went door to door as a little kid for Ronald Reagan, too.

              You can keep all those bible thumping, capitalism hating scumbags. Go back to the Democrats. That’s where you belong anyway.

              1. great…the self-hating one-time southerner. It’s like watching a political version of Lifetime, except instead of a hapless female victim its a conservative who felt out of water in the part of hte country not drowning in its own debt.

                1. Are you suggesting that Southern politics aren’t driven by culture war issues?

                  1. I am suggesting that southerners are just as against the welfare state as anyone, seeing as how they get a close up look at the white trash component of it. They don’t view those folks any more favorably than the baby mama wing of Big Welfare.

                    Yes, they are all about guns, not nearly as much as you think about abortion, off the rails on the Christian nation sentiment, and very pro-military. What did I leave out? Gay marriage perhaps, but referenda in other states have had the same result as those in the South.

                    1. Um…can’t help but notice that the only vaguely economic issue you’re mentioning there, welfare, is probably also more of a culture war issue.

                      In fact, I’d go so far as to say that welfare is more of a culture war issue than an economic issue.

                      When I say I want lower taxes and less spending, I want that regardless of what’s happening with welfare. When I hear people complain about welfare queens? It seems to me like they’re complaining more about that dependency culture.

                      Anyway, I want lower taxes and less spending, and if I can get that and let people get gay married, have more welfare queens, and let people have their abortions?

                      I’ll make that deal right now. Because what I care about is lower spending and less taxes. If the South can’t get support for lower spending and less taxes without banging on some culture war drum? Then I’m gonna say they’re a problem for people who want lower spending and less taxes.

                      And why would anyone argue with that?

                      Look at this Map showing which states voted for Carter over Ford.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..ge1976.svg

                      It wasn’t until 1980 that the South broke for the Republican Party. It wasn’t that long ago. We should send ’em back with their culture war to the Democrat Party. Let the Democrats compromise their socialist message with the culture war still raging in the South–then maybe us capitalists, at least, can make some progress.

                    2. who in the South is advocating for higher taxes, Ken? And try to stay on point – you got a culture answer because you asked a culture question:

                      Are you suggesting that Southern politics aren’t driven by culture war issues?

                      one could say every state’s politics are driven by the culture, whether it’s unions or rednecks. Economically, the South remains almost exclusively right to work; the tax burden is less than in much of the North and CA. You don’t like Southerners; I get it but I usually expect better arguments from you.

                    3. Who in the South is advocating for higher taxes, Ken?

                      How often does anybody advocate for higher taxes?

                      And, actually, I like Southerners just fine. I’d rather the culture warriors who dominate their politics would go back to the Democratic Party where they belong.

                    4. jesus, Ken. Both sides have their culture warriors; seems many Southerners advocate against the position you favor. Regardless, elections turn largely on economics which I thought was the original point.

                      Again, the states facing fiscal crises are not those in the South. And the so-called Southern Strategy pre-dates Reagan.

                    5. And the so-called Southern Strategy pre-dates Reagan.

                      I think you’re right that Reagan didn’t start the Southern Strategy. However, the Southern Strategy came to its fulfillment in 1980 with Reagan, and the South hasn’t strayed an inch since.

                      The South started leaving the Democrats, really, when Barry Goldwater (whose corpse would make a better president than anybody running) opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

                      Reagan fulfilled all of that by going around and talking about states rights throughout the South back in the 1976 election cycle.

                      When he won in 1980, it was a done deal.

                      Anyway, there isn’t any doubt about when the South became Republican in my mind, and if the South is going to keep running on about culture war issues at the expense of real economic issues like spending and taxes, then I’d just as soon see the South go back to the Democrats again.

                      I’m not sure the Republicans would pick up more support than they lost, initially, but with the South out of the picture, they’d have a much better go of it in places like California and even in places like Wisconsin!

                    6. Ken you really are a stupid PoS.

                      1964?

                      1968?

                      1972?

                      Who did the South vote for?

                2. Put me in there too. I grew up in Georgia and the South is a canker sore on the ass of America. It always will be.

                  Think Fat Rush and his ass carbunkle that got him out of the military. There is nothing to admire about such a greasepig Bushpig like that.

                  1. Rush is from Mizzou, hardly the South. Carter, meanwhile, went to the Naval Academy but sucked as POTUS. Again, none of the states on the verge of going belly up is Southern. Probably a coincidence since all those smart, non-cankerlike folks in other parts are so much sharper.

                    1. Neither Clinton nor Obama have served, either, shrike.

                      Or Romney, for that matter.

                      But do go on about Rush.

                    2. “Rush is from Mizzou, hardly the South.”

                      Did you sleep through history class? Missouri was in the CSA. Rush is from southeast Missouri, which usually gets lumped into the “mid south” category.

                    3. Missouri was not in the CSA. It was one of the four border states that stayed with the Union.

                  2. Delta is ready when you are shriek.

                  3. Put me in there too. I grew up in Georgia and the South is a canker sore on the ass of America.

                    I wouldn’t say that.

                    But I wish they’d go back to the Democrats, where they belong.

                    1. Sorry Ken, round goes to WarEagle. I hate the SoCons, but the ‘culture war’ stuff is everywhere. It is not unique to the South it is just ‘hotter’ there. And it’s pretty clear that the Southern states are not going to fiscal hell.

                    2. And it’s pretty clear that the Southern states are not going to fiscal hell.

                      Legislatures in states outside the South can’t get fiscally conservative Republicans elected becasue the Republican brand is too closely associated with culture war baggage coming from the South.

                      Honest.

                    3. Give me a fucking break Ken. If you really believe that I have every bridge in the world to sell you.

                    4. It’s a fact.

                  4. “Put me in there too.”

                    In Obama’s ass? You’re already there, shrike.

                    “I grew up in Georgia”

                    Were your parents siblings, or cousins?

                    1. I thought Obama was in Shrike’s ass? Or is it both, like multitudes of assfuckery?

    3. Norquist is right: The real idiots are those that accept definite tax increases today in exchange for future spending cuts that never come. The ratio isn’t even important, since the cuts will never be implemented.

      No more tax increases without a sizable – 10:1 is good – reduction in spending TODAY.

      1. Call it the “Wimpy” budget plan.

        “I’ll gladly cut spending Tuesday for a tax increase today.”

    4. Romney overall is probably the most moderate candidate the republicans have nominated for the presidency since at least Gerald Ford, and possibly even Dwight Eisenhower, you dumb fuck.

      Now do the world a favor and jump in front an eighteen wheeler.

      1. Trains are heavier; he might cause the semi to jackknife, causing much devastation on The Rooooaaaads.

  2. We haven’t had a competent president in at least 12 years.

    1. Clinton was the best POTUS in my lifetime for sure. Agree with you on that.

      1. Fuck him, too.

        I’m almost 49. IMO, we haven’t had a competent president in *my* lifetime.

        That includes the three months JFK was still alive – and, no, I have an alibi for his shooting; I was three months old when it happened.

        1. Carter is the most libertarian POTUS in our lifetimes then.

          Deregulation of airlines, trucking, finance, natural gas, and the Civil Service Act that prevented federal workers from bargaining.

          No wars, no tax increases, I don’t understand why Carter is not an LP icon.

          Hell, he probably is okay with drugs too.

          1. Fuck Carter.

            1. You can’t refute my reasoning or facts.

              Fine.

              None can.

              1. You’re full of yourself, you stupid cuntbastard.

                1. You know that Carter is the most Libertarian of any POTUS since Coolidge.

                  YOU KNOW IT – because its true!

                  1. Not good enough, shrike. I have higher standards than that failure.

                    Which is why I won’t be voting Romney OR Obama this fall.

                    1. Who is then if not Carter?

                      No one is close.

                      Nixon is a joke, Reagan was good on not starting wars but terrible on everything else and Dumbya was a retard.

                      Bush 41 vs Carter it is then!

                    2. Three words:

                      Department.
                      Of.
                      Education.

                      Not to mention President Goober giving us Jihad, Inc. in Iran.

                    3. You stupid fuckwad. The DOE was around as HEW for years. And Carter did not declare a fucked-up ground war like Dumbya did in Iraq. Fuck the hostages that Reagan bribed Iran with.

                      You don’t understand the LP do y ou?

                    4. Carter introduced windfall taxes and other stupid shit along his salutary moves. Reagan was still better for dereg and lower taxes. And Carter allowed Jihad Inc aka Iran to shame America.

                    5. and the Olympic boycott, a stroke of stupidity if there ever was one.

                    6. “You don’t understand the LP do y ou?”

                      We understand it a fuck of a lot better than an Obama cocksucker like yourself, shrike.

          2. Carter is the most libertarian POTUS in our lifetimes then.

            Eh hard to tell really. You have to remember Reagen did not exactly pull the plug on those reforms and saw many of them fulfilled when he took over. Also Reagen spent a shit load on defense but he tended to keep out of actual war.

            Also you have Clinton with NAFTA and Nixon with ending the draft.

            Free Trade and ending the draft are pretty damn huge on the libertarian meter.

            I am kind of proud though Shrike…you are actually slowly but surely at least understanding what libertarian is. Way better then say Tony on this front.

            1. Damning with faint praise, josh?

              1. Damning with faint praise, josh?

                Sort of. Shrike has gotten better believe it or not.

                Right now he is misshapen libertarian robot…he has all the pieces but they are kludged together haphazardly as if constructed by a mad man….but ever so slowly, if one watches over time, his pieces move inch worm ever closer to a coherent logical shape.

                Fascinating really. It is like seeing a giant pile of shit self construct into Galactus.

            2. Reagan’s victory in the Cold War absolves his statist sins. If the Dems were in power they would have subsidized the Soviet Union for “stability” and to keep all those Soviet Policy experts employed.

              1. Good point, SIV.

                Wonder how many Democrats cried like babies when the Soviet Union fell apart…

                1. Wonder how many Democrats cried like babies when the Soviet Union fell apart…

                  Plenty, I lived through it. And did you not say you were near 49? So you lived through it too. Surprised you forgot.

              2. Good point, SIV.

                Wonder how many Democrats cried like babies when the Soviet Union fell apart…

                1. Damn you, squirrels!

                  1. Very much worth pointing out twice, FIFY.

                    1. True dat, and watch when one or both of the Castros die… watch who cries.

                      Every one of ’em will be a Democrat, of one form or another.

              3. If the Dems were in power they would have subsidized the Soviet Union for “stability” and to keep all those Soviet Policy experts employed.

                If the Berlin wall were to have fallen today, the Democrats would have declared it Too Big to Fail.

          3. Carter is the most libertarian POTUS in our lifetimes then.

            It should be pointed out that Carter is a baptist and was/is deeply religious.

            He also “personally opposes abortion”.

            1. Wait, now… *I* personally oppose abortion, but I wouldn’t make public policy on it one way or another.

              That being said… yeah, Carter was pretty much teh suck.

              1. carter got homebrewing legalized!!!!

                carter was an awful president, but i have zero doubt he’s sincere as hell, and he MEANS well.

                i like to remind libs that carter is an evangelical, when they get on one of their anti-religion screeds

                again, i think the guy is sincere and has a good heart, it’s just that that is hardly qualification for president. he managed to be pro civil rights when he was much younger and living in an area where such viewpoints were unheard of

                i truly believe he follows his conscience

                1. Even a blind squirrel finds a screen door on a submarine twice a day.

      2. I have very little good to say about Clinton. I hated Clinton when he was in office.

        I think the nicest thing I can think to say about him is? I’m not sure he was entirely incompetent.

        He could have screwed up NAFTA but didn’t.

        I don’t have to agree with somebody on everything to acknowledge they might be competent, and, you know, if you want to say Clinton was incompetent, there are good arguments to make for that, too…

        But certainly it’s been so long since someone in the White House made consistently competent decisions–that Bush the Lesser and Obama have made Clinton appear more competent by comparison.

        Anyway, I hope the next guy, whoever he is, turns out to be competent. I’m as against the imperial presidency as the next libertarian, but if we’re gonna have an emperor? It wouldn’t hurt if he made consistently competent decisions.

        Doesn’t mean I have to agree with them, but, Jesus, let ’em be based on some logic better than whatever dartboard Bush Jr. and Obama have been using.

        1. Clinton’s only strength was – and is – being smooth as butter.

          He’s a great bullshitter, too.

          1. Okay, make that “only strengths”.

            1. By comparison to Obama? It’s what he could have done.

              He backed off on HillaryCare, when he saw how bad an idea that was. Obama just doubled down and got it passed anyway–advantage Slick Willy.

              Clinton didn’t use the legacy of the SL crisis to jack up the economy with all sorts of horrendous regulation–but Obama used the legacy of the housing crisis to jack up the economy with all sorts of horrendous regulation. …again–advantage Slick Willy.

              Now that I’ve seen Bush Jr. and Obama for 12 years? It’s not just what Slick Willy did–it’s what he didn’t do.

              1. I concede those points, Ken… now, let’s watch as shrike tells us Obama is The Second Coming of Barry Goldwater.

          2. He’s a great bullshitter, too.

            I always enjoyed the story of how you knew he thought the person he was talking to was an asshole. He would start the conversation with them by saying “Nice tie!”

        2. The Republican Congress and OKC bombing were the best things to happen to Clinton.

          1. Didn’t Limbaugh himself pay for the explosives for the OKC bombing?

            /liberal logic

  3. What the hell is wrong with skilled worker immigration? The progressives hate it too. I wish they’d just eliminate the visa caps and let people immigrate based on their demonstrated ability to support themselves.

    1. But SIV… DEYTURKURJURBS!!!!!11

  4. Of course in 1980 we were only 15 years past the awful 1965 immigration act. Now at 48 years we can see how importing hordes of 3rd world savages is bad for America. It is time for an immigration moratorium of at leat 40 years.

    1. Bad how? Lower labor costs and more people are bad how? Aside from your reflexive fear of Foreign People.

    2. Troll, troll, troll your boat
      gently down the stream

      1. lol

    3. Yeah, I’m sure that won’t make the U.S. bleed jobs even faster than it already does. No way would anything happen like, say, Microsoft closing down their WA campus and moving operations to India. Nope, it’ll never happen ‘cuz GAWD BLESS MERCIA!

  5. Don’t let Riggs read this!

    Drone-controlled truck bombs in Syria:
    http://www.tri-cityherald.com/…..ludes.html

    Good news: if they don’t want to blow themselves up, they probably aren’t Islamofascist.

  6. Let everyone in. That way, 64 year olds from Laos can enter the country for their free pension and medicaid!

    1. Yeah, that’s a great idea.

      1. Wait… you’re serious, and I was being sarcastic.

        1. I’m all for taking in refugees who actually killed and bled in the cause of fighting communism. As long as they or their families can demonstrate they can support themselves.

          1. I’m all for taking anyone in who can demonstrate they can support themselves.

            I think the easiest way to do this is to eliminate all social programs for immigrants for the first 7 years (to pick a random, but probably long enough number) upon entry. If you come here knowing you’re on your own for the first 7 years, I’m pretty sure you can support yourself.

          2. I’m all for taking anyone in who can demonstrate they can support themselves.

            I think the easiest way to do this is to eliminate all social programs for immigrants for the first 7 years (to pick a random, but probably long enough number) upon entry. If you come here knowing you’re on your own for the first 7 years, I’m pretty sure you can support yourself.

    1. I’m havin’ a beer for the Kings tonight, been rooting for these guys for a while.

      Seem like a good group, they’ve got Rob “The Piece” Scuderi, and The Devils losing is good for hockey.

  7. Jeb Bush is right about something I agree with, but just to make sure everyone knows I still think all republicans are idiots, I’ll bring up something stupid he thinks that is totally unrelated to the article at hand.

    1. I’ll bring up something stupid he thinks that is totally unrelated to the article at hand.

      I’ve heard tell that he enjoys himself them there Chicago style pizzas.

      Fucking nazi scum.

      1. If I read one more dis on Chicago pizza in HnR I will have to take some serious punitive action.

        Signed,
        Chicago native who’s lived in California for 27 years and all the pizza out here sux

        1. Just because you call it pizza doesn’t make it pizza.

        2. If I read one more dis on Chicago pizza bread and tomato casserole in HnR I will have to take some serious punitive action.

          Fixed that up fer ya.

          1. What bugs me about this is that in Chicago, the thin crust Chicago pizza outsells the Deep Dish about 10 to 1.

            So “Chicago Style Pizza” is not the most popular type of pizza in Chicago.

            1. I actually had some really good pizza in Chicago. It was a made in a fire oven, and had basil, tomatoes, fresh mozzarella, garlic, olive oil and prosciutto. It was very thin and crispy.

              Can’t remember the name of the restaurant but they have really good Italian food. I had gnocchi there that were melt in your mouth good.

              1. Also, fuck “Chicago-style” pizza. An abomination against all that is right.

                Pizza should be thin and crispy, like an aging Florida housewife…

                While we’re at it, fuck Chicago in general. Overrated town. Fuck you, Chicago.

        3. Chicago makes a decent hot dog. I think the celery salt is the key.

          1. Best Chi-dog I’ve ever had was actually in Lima, OH. It was the pepper and pickle relish + onions that did it. Mmmmm – so good!

        4. There’s a few Rosati’s here in Phoenix, and over near my parents’ house they got a guy who retired down here who used to have a pizza shop near Midway, and he opened up a small pizza shop here.

          The Rosati’s is fair, but it’s the real thing, while the retired guy’s pizzas are good even by Chicago standards (not great though).

          I also lived near a small shop in Tempe where a guy and his mom from New York ran it, and it’s pretty easy to tell that it’s legit New York pizza and it’s not too bad (but a completely different thing than Chicago thin crust).

          1. That pizza shop was a lot better when Virginia Postrel was running it….

            *gulp, gulp, gulp…*

          2. Here in ATL I can get a good facsimile of real New York pizza. I think the owners and cooks are from Bangladesh.

            1. God bless America

  8. Should I finish the brake job on the Cherokee? It’s been sitting in the garage for a month with everything stripped except that ONE caliper bolt that broke off…I have it 1/2 drilled out. Got tired of it and moved on to other projects….

    What am I thinking – I need to go to bed – work tomorrow.

    Night, Reason!

  9. I haven’t been an active libertarian in years so maybe someone can help me catch up. When did the movement become all about carrying water for the Republican Party? Or is that just this blog and most of the commenters here?

    1. It’s just Ken and Tulpa.

      1. When did the movement become all about carrying water for the Republican Party?

        You imagine I’m carrying water for the Republican Party, Curious George?

        Do you understand what “carrying water” means?

        1. Here’s a hint: denouncing the Republicans because neither Barry Goldwater nor Ronald Reagan could win the GOP nomination today?

          Is not carrying water for the Republican Party.

          Denouncing the Republican Party becasue to assuage the South, they let stupid culture war issues that don’t matter for shit dominate their agenda?

          That’s not carrying water for the Republican Party either.

          1. “…they let stupid culture war issues that don’t matter for shit dominate their agenda?”

            So libertarians and specifically the writers here don’t let culture war issues dominate their agenda? If you really believe culture war issues do not matter you should be criticizing Reason for focusing on those issues as much as its writers do. If the issue is unimportant in itself, then anyone’s focus on them is objectionable.

            Secondly, the contraceptive indurance mandate is a culture war issue that is inextricably attached to the issue of the government claiming the authority to dictate economic choices to people. You are just frustrated that most people who agree with you on economic issues disgree with you on social issues.

            1. If I see Reason arguing in favor of the culture warriors, I’ll be sure to call them out for it.

              In the meantime, I defy anyone to defend the Republicans passing a law in Congress meant to make a culture war issue out of a single person…

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..Compromise

              …because even while Iraq was degenerating into chaos, even as the Cheney Administration’s attacks on our Constitutional rights were gaining momentum, the GOP needed a “culture of death” issue to rally their base in the South–and who cares if the legislation only involved one person? The Terri Schiavo case was just as important than the war or our Constitutional rights anyway?

              No, it wasn’t.

    2. When Bush Jr. was in office, there were more people here who empathized with what the Democrats were doing.

      …not as many as there are now, who empathize with the Republicans, but certainly there were more people who empathized with the Democrats back then.

      Once we got a Democrat in the White House, all of a sudden, we got a bunch of Republicans stacked in here.

      I suppose it’s natural for Libertarians to always be opposed to whomever is in the White House. And that tends to make the site lean in favor of whatever party isn’t in the White House at the moment.

      Add to that, Ron Paul ran as a Republican, and that gave the Republicans some extra credibility. There’s some residue left over from the Tea Party rebellion against TARP, too…

      All of that’s contributed to the preponderance of Republican sympathies around here right now.

      But I remember. It was just a few years ago. When the Republicans were desecrating the Bill of Rights, blowing the lid off the deficit, expanding entitlements, and denouncing libertarians as traitors for not fully endorsing whatever Dear Leader Bush wanted to do outside our borders…

      It was only three and a half years ago. I remember well.

  10. The Reagan-the-rino argument is like arguing that Thomas Jefferson’s history as a slaveowner means he couldn’t get elected today. Reagan had to contend with a much more liberal country and party. I’m sure he would have made different decisions today, especially if it meant the difference between being electable or not. He (rightly or wrongly) gets credit for turning the republican party into the conservative party of the country, (and that’s why Republicans have since locked down the conservative south, btw, as opposed to the racism-based conspiracy theory liberals push). That’s a big deal and why he’s revered, not just because he was “relatively conservative” at the time.

    1. “Conservative” doesn’t mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.

      “Conservative” means opposition to the New Deal, opposition to high taxes, opposition to communism, just as much as the other issues.

      In fact, opposition to the New Deal and communism has much deeper roots in conservatism, going back to FDR, than evangelicalism does.

      Hell, by your definition, are you saying that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan weren’t really conservative?

      Reagan had to contend with a much more liberal country and party.

      Effing ridiculous!

      The country was more liberal during Goldwater and Reagan’s day?!

      Pure B.S.

      1. Nothing in my post had to do with defining conservatism. Absolutely nothing whatsoever dealt with religion. Perhaps in your blanket trolling of the message board, you have confused me with someone else.

        Otherwise go look up the liberal consensus and Rockefeller republicans. Of course the country was more liberal when the population was younger.

  11. Jeb Bush advocating for Team Purple and Cavanaugh looks favorably upon this because Bush kind of agrees with him on the issue of immigration. From what I’ve seen lately, when an establishment Republican complains about “orthodoxy” it means he resents movements like the Tea Party targeting entrenched GOP politicians like Hatch. In a large part, this has to do with Republicans getting burned on making deals with Democrats that ended up being one sided, like Bush Sr on taxes and Reagan on immigration amnesty. It is odd that Cavanaugh focuses on what Reagan said in the ’80 campaign while ignoring what happened during his administration that colored GOP perception of that issue.

  12. If I may be so bold to speak on behalf of my people, bullshit, Ken. Where do you get that we don’t care about the economy? Do you just assume that we rednecks are too stupid and inbred to understand the complexities of budgeting? The problem with Bush, and all the “Compassionate Conservatives”, is that there is nothing compassionate about creating and supporting dependency. Down here in the South we believe in self-sufficiency. Your paternalistic attitude towards us is unappreciated.

    1. But “creating and supporting dependency” is a key part of Democrat strategy as well, carol. Without it, they don’t get re-elected every two/four/six years.

      1. Yeah, Mr. FIFY, but I expect crap like that from Democrats. It pisses me off when my own team is indistinguishable from the blue team. I voted for Jeb Bush three times and I think that he was a wonderful governor but his doubling down in support of fatally flawed policies irks me. Lately his whole politically philosophy can be summed up as, “Can’t we all just get along?” Well, no we can’t.

  13. That dude jsut looks gay lol.

    http://www.Anon-Geeks.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.