Yesterday, many hard-line Conservatives took issue with Jeb Bush during his remarks at the CPAC convention in Palm Beach. Their belief is that he’s far too liberal for them, especially regarding his stance on illegal immigrants now in the U.S. and his acceptance of Common-Core principles in education.
As a practical matter, his stance on immigration is that “first and foremost” the federal government should secure the borders. Then he went on to emphasize that at present, “there is no plan to deport 11 million people.”
Since that’s the case, and it won’t likely change, he opined that, “We should give them a path to legal status where they work, where they don’t receive government benefits … where they learn English and where they make a contribution to our society.”
What was most interesting however is that while Conservatives remain hostile, “His comments were met with a mix of applause and scattered boos from the crowd – a change from earlier in the day when just the mere mention of his name triggered a chorus of boos.”
The scenario struck home because there should be little doubt that any hard-line Conservative has very little chance of being elected POTUS. Much like the liberal left, they can’t attract more than 40% of the presidential vote at best. Which means that somewhere, somehow candidates must figure out how to gain strength with the 20%, and growing, independents in the middle ground.
Even Rush, speaking in another context yesterday, said pretty much the same thing, as follows: “Particularly now. It's serious! We need to elect somebody who can do a bunch of things: Beat the left in an election and beat the left legislatively. Other than that, all this is academic; we're just flapping our gums here. But what I fear, the more full-fledged... I say "Republicans" as opposed to "conservatives."
Thus, he fully understands the Conservative problems and acknowledges that a way is needed to get Republicans foot in the door.
Two readers of the article made very astute comments in the same vein.
repealobama wrote: “I think a winning combination would be someone who is socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Most people are worried about the future of our country financially with all the debt and would love to see someone take a stand to cut the spending.
BadEgg added: “I like that, a socially moderate fiscally conservative candidate. Where is that person? A socially liberal fiscally conservative combination would be even better.
So, what that means is the two who presently have the best credentials to give their party what’s needed are current idol, Scott Walker, and slowly but surely gaining Jeb Bush.
On another topic, the relentlessly cold winter simply refuses to let up.
drroyspencer.com reports that, “The unseasonable cold is expected to continue over much of the U.S., with some interruptions, and the latest GFS model forecast shows some snow for portions of all 50 states in the next seven days.”
Most of the comments following the article focused on global warming as an administration fostered hoax derived for self-serving political purposes. In fact, many of those adding their thoughts made erroneous politicizing their primary topic, citing such things as the president saying he visited all 57 states when campaigning.
One reader listed other speechmaking gaffes, such as calling Europe a “country.” Saying Austrians speak “Austrian.” Hawaii is in Asia. Thinking we need more “Arabic translators” in Afghanistan so we can understand the natives, believing we have an “intercontinental” railroad, thinking the Constitution was written “20 centuries ago." Emma Lazarus raised funds to build the Statue of Liberty. Mexico was a nation before the US was even an idea and that the American army liberated Auschwitz.
However, as far as the “climate change” farce itself is concerned, reader remy A offered the best explanation by far, as follows: “Imagine that time on earth is a football field and each year is a blade of grass. Now imagine 60 minutes of hard-fought football has been played. Once the field is cleared we march out to the 50 yard line and pluck 125 blades of grass and then we use those blades, damaged as they may be, to guess the condition of the rest of the field. That’s us on climate — we’re guessing as to what a “normal’ climate is based .0000001% of Earth time. In no other science could you establish a baseline with .0000001% of information.”
Nonetheless, although remy A is precisely correct, he’s forgetting that when it comes to applying actual facts, this administration relies on the old Dean Martin line I’ve used several times in the past: “If you’re going to hit me with logic, I don’t want to chit-chat.”
That's it for today folks.