So which is it, Jeb? And yes, it IS a BFD! - Granite Grok

So which is it, Jeb? And yes, it IS a BFD!

Jeb BushWhen Jeb Bush was just leaving the Governorship of Florida as we were just getting the ‘Grok off the ground.  What we learned, in that still early stage of the blogosphere, was that many older pols just didn’t get the Internet – and that what they said was never, EVAH going to be forgotten.  Not only that, what they said (accidentally or by design) to one set of folks is going to be compared to another set.  The message presented to “groom” one set of potential voters would likely tick off a different set but these candidates figured that they could get away with it without consequences.  And then, one by one, they learned (the HARD way) that the Internet was the Disruptive Technology for Campaigns they never thought would BITE them.

Apparently, it still does; has Jeb Bush fallen into that trap?  This from the Daily Caller, and there’s so many flips, I might start calling him Lurch (although Lurch, after what seems to a chin implant, is looking more like Odo these days) (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Republican presidential aspirant Jeb Bush has different positions on amnesty depending on which audience he’s talking to. Bush visited New Hampshire this weekend

and discussed his amnesty position at a business roundtable held at Integra Biosciences. In front of the business crowd, Bush supported a path to “legal status” for illegal immigrants — a buzzword for non-citizenship that would allow illegals to work for companies that want cheap labor.  “The best plan, the most realistic plan, the grown-up plan, once you control the border … is to say, ‘Let these folks achieve, earn legal status,’” Bush said. “If we just keep people in the shadows, we’re not going to solve our immigration problems.”

One. NH.

But sometimes Bush supports a path to outright citizenship, like when he was in New York City chatting up PBS host Charlie Rose.  “You have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it,” Bush told Rose in 2012. “And so, either a path to citizenship, which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives; Or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind.”

Two. NYC.

But wait a minute. In 2013, he outright blasted citizenship in his book“Immigration Wars.”“Permanent residency in this context, however, should not lead to citizenship,” Bush wrote with a co-author. “It is absolutely vital to the integrity of our immigration system that actions have consequences — in this case, that those who violated the laws can remain but cannot obtain the cherished fruits of citizenship. … A grant of citizenship is an undeserving reward for conduct that we cannot afford to encourage.”

Flip. Book.

But wait a minute. Then he said on MSNBC that his book was old and that he’s actually for citizenship.  “We wrote this book last year, not this year, and we proposed a path to legalization, so anybody that had come illegally would have immediately a path to legalization,” Bush said. “If you can craft that in law, where you can have a path to citizenship where there isn’t an incentive for people to come illegally, I’m for it. I don’t have a problem with that.”

Flop.  And Spin.  And wanting all sides of the issue at the same time.

He also said on CNN in 2013 that he has supported both options, presumably at different times.

Haven’t we had ENOUGH of politicians not telling us the truth.  Or worse, trying to bend whatever truth they posses to fit a particular narrative based on the crowd?

So what is the truth de jour?  Or is this a Fungus (Cullen) truth – like any parasitical fungus, hollows out its host to sustain itself?

>