Jeb Bush: Never Vote for Him, Even as Dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas

Jeb Bush is a ttraitor to conservatives, jsut as is true of his father and brother. Dobubt me?  never do that.  A few weeks ago JebaBush was being asked questins by some leftist person (I think in Congress, before some committee, but it is ireelevant where).  He wsa asked about that absrud, propaganda "questin" asked of GOP candidates in a debate asking all candidates who would refuse to agree to even $1 in tax increases for every $10 in "speinding cut" to raise their hands. The MISTAKE the cndidates made was no tto ATTACK the unfair and ridiculous quesiton:  not to do like Fred Thomopson did ans say that he refused to trivilize a serious subject by raising his hand like some school child.


But Jeb Bush did much more lthan make lthhe mistake of raising his hand to a ridiculously loaded media questin.  Jeb Bush "bught into" the queestin by saying that if leaders in Congress came up with a "deal" (like the one where Jeb's father BETRAYED conservatives and his onw "read my lips" statement based on "spending cuts" that never happened), then Jeb Bush would approve of such a deal that had $10 in spending cuts for every dollar raised in taxes. But traitor Jeb Bush went even further.  He went on to say, in answer to antoher questin, that he was wiling to say he would consider $10 in spending cuts for every dollar in raised taxes because he is not running for office. This, of course, implied that ALL of teh GOP candidates were so "intimidated" by peole like The Maverick Conservative that they culd not be honest about the kind of "compromise" that is necessary.  Message to Jeb Bush:  I take yu at yur word that yuo have nothing but contempt for conservatvives.  I reciprocate the feeling . I have nothihng but CONTEMPT for you. No, this was NOT an aberratino on Bush's part.  See below.


This is what Jeb Bush SHULD have anwered to this questino, if he wre not a traitor to conservatives seeking the approval of the leftist mainstream media:


"With respect, that is a nonsense questin on yur part. I mean that the questin mmakes absolutely no sense at all, and can't possibly be answered as asked.Unless yu define WHAT "spending cuts" yu are talkng abut, WHEN, the question has no meaninng.  Skmilarluy, the questin has no meaning unless yu define WHAT "tax increases" you are talking abut, and WHEN.  For example, The Maverick Conservative  (hey this is my fantasy answer, as Jeb Bush owuld never reallly  give an answer conservatives couuld endorese) has ADVOCATED "only $5 in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases. However, what The Maverick Conserative has advocated is allowing the fraudulent "payroll tax cut" to expire. That is a 100 BILLIN dollar "tax increase" (eally merely going back to tryng to restore Social Security as a self-funding system). Using that 5 to 1 ratioo, we wuld then make 500 BILIN dolars in spending cuts FOR THE VERY NEXT FISCLAL YEAR (meaining the tax increase and spending cuts would occur in the very same lyear, whiich is the ony way the comparison has any meaning.). Since that $100 billion dollar "tax increase" would continue for the next year, we wuld then do "spending cuts' of another 5000 billin.  Then we would suddenly have a balanced budget.  And I haven't even gotten to other tax increases that I would consider, such as eliminating alll of these ridiculous "green" subsidies, like wating 500 millin dollars on Solyndra. I know what you are thining.  When Obama talks abut "spending cuts", he is not talking abut CURRENT SPENDING CUTS (the only kind that have any meaning).  And when Democrats talk abut "spending cuts", they generaly want to start lokng a defense.  And when Obama and Democrats look at "tax increases", thy are not talking abut eliminating the "tax breaks" that they LIKE.  They are talking abut class warfare:  tax RATE increases for the 'rich", which realy means an ever more complicated tax rate system that keeps narrowing the number of peoole that are bearing the burden for iinancing all of this government spending Obama and teh Democrats want.  The only "spendin g cuts' they want are FALSE: either gimmicks or defense "savings" they hav no idea that we can ever do and they think Republicans won't accept anyway, or suppoed, often undefined, "cuts' so far in the future that they expect they will never take place.  Why not jsut propose "spending cuts" in the year 210.  That would have jut as much meaning as what the Democrats, and too many REpublicans, actualy do propse.  "10 years" is an aribrary number, and it is absolutely absurd to comopare immediate "tax increases" with FAR FTURE "spending cuts".  Yes, I have given an example which Obama and the Democrats would never accept.  But that is exactly what makes you r questin NONSENSE.  Unless you know the DETAILS, the questin itself is nothing more than an absurd LIE."


"But that is not even the worst of it.  It is FALSE to suggest that tax increases and spending cuts should be related to one another.  They are entirely separate issues.  TAX POLICY is one issue.  The amount, and place, of  "spending cuts' is another issue. They are related in only one way:  we should be gettng to the pont that we spend ONLY the amount of revenue we have.  But tax RATE increases may well not even bring in ANY extra revenue.  However, REFORM of the tax code can bring in LOTS of extra revenue, by eliminating or reducing tax avoidance AND increasing growth.  The more we complicate the tax coe, and try to engage in clas warfare against the "rich", the more we make 'tax reform" impossible.  Three are all kinds of 'increased taxes"--eliminatin of 'tax breaks'--which I would be willing to consider.  However, if you try to use such a "closing of loopholes' to 'pay for' exess spending, thke Tax Code remains a drag on growth and fails to produce the revenue it should. Thus, reform of the Tax Code is, and shuld be, a completely different issue from spending.  We should be aiming at a SIMPLE tax RATES, and LOWER tax RATES (including for the 'rich'), in combinatin with taking away a lot of these 'tax expenditures'. The last thing we need is to INCRFEASE tax RATES in a way that makes the Tax Code more unfair and complicated, such that we dont' raise the revenue we should and dont't encourge private sector growth the way we should.  Your nonsense quesitn assumes that all we do is 'wave a magic wand' and get a certain amount of revenue from an IDENTIFIED tax poll.  That is absurd--truly nonsense.  Thus, it is nonsense to ask me whether I would support 41 in tax increases for $10 in spending cuts.  The whole Tax Code needs to be reformed and simliefied.  I would expect that would likely INCREASE tax REVENUES, even as the "rich' paid LOWER tax RATES. In all events, however, the questin is nonsense unless you actualy describvbe exatctly WHAT "tax increases" you are taling about, and end WHEN; and you describe exactly WHAT spendin gcuts you are talking abut, and WHN.  That is wy all of this talk about a 'grand bargain is totally dECEPTIVE.  If you are proposing immediate tax increases, and only vague, far future 'spending cuts', then you are being DISHONEST.  If, in the process, you continue to INCREASE our current debtas far as the eye can see, and proposing to further make the Tax Code an unholy unfair mess in the name of clas warfare, then you are doing wrose than being deceptive.  You are DESTROYING the country."


That is what Jeb Bush should have said.  He would NEVER say anything like it, which is why I would never vote for him for any public office--including dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas. That is ntot a slam at Mt. Ida, the small Arkansas town where I had a hapy childhood.  It is merely my way of emphasizing how I wuld oppose Jeb Bush for ANY elective office whatever.


Okay.  The above explains jeb Bush's recent betrayal of conservatives. But what has he done agaisnt me LATELY. Well, is TODYAY current enough for you?  The illegal immigratin PROPAGANDA sotry today, curtesy of the desapicable AP, Yahoo and Jeb Bush, is to the effect that Jeb Bush "says" taht Mitt Romney "boxed himself in on illegal immigration in the primaries". Actually, the pro-illeal immigratino liears of the mainstream media, and, for that matter, Jeb Bush, MAY have used the DECEPTIVE word "immigration"; but we know what they meant.  The message from Jeb Bush is clear--a message he knew would be USED by the proillegal immigrant propagandists of the mainstream media in exactly this way:  "The reank and file of the GOP is composed of too many redneck HICKS, who do not have my 'enlightened' positino on illegal immigratino. Too bad that Mitt Romney ws not able to put out his own similarly enlightened positin, without beng so harsh on illegal immigrants, because he had to appel to those unenlightened conservative HICKS in the primaries." 


See the previus article osted on this blog.  Jeb Bush, in an act of suicide for his future political career, has lined himself squarely up with the 25% of teh American people who don't support the 'harsh" Arizona law on illegal imigratin  Unfortunately for Jeb Bush, 75% of the American peole SUPPORT the "harsh" Arizona law supported by Mitt Romney "in the primaries".  You don't win many electin s putting yurself agaisnt 75% of the American people. Instead of saying that Mitt Romney would be better off setting himself agaisnt 75% of the American peole, Jeb Bush would have been mnmuch better advised to tell mitt Romney to point out more aggressively how OUT OF TOUCH Barack Obama is with the Aemrican people.  But how can Jeb Bush do that, when Jeb Bush is so OUT OF TOUCH with teh Aemrican people.  You WIN electins by being on the side of teh 75%. Y ou LOSE electins by folowing the davise,of, and thinking like, Jeb Bush. Needless to say, this was yet anotehr BETRAYAL by Jeb Bush of conservatives. Three strikes (Bush has actually had more than three strikes) and you are OUT.  I am now willing to make this flat statement:  Jeb Bush will NEVER be either Vice Prresident or President of the United States. In fact I think there is little chance he will ever hold ANY major elective office again.  Good riddance. Conseratives will certainly be better off.  But the NATION will be the big WINNER.


More Americans SUPPORT the Arizona law on illeagl immigration than oppose ObamaCare, and a big MAJORITY of Americans oppose ObamaCare.  Why cannot Mitt Romney turn this into a THEME that Barack Obamais ut of touch with the American peoplle? He can, if only he does not listen to people like Jeb Bush.  Read the previous article again.  There is simply no dbut that the "GOP establishment" (Bush wing of tgeh GOP) is just as much OUT OF TOUCH with the American peole no illegal immigratin as Barack Obama.  Romney has this COICE: align himself with 76% of  the American people, or stand with the LOSERS of teh GOP establishment (and 25%, r less, of teh American people). 


That is exactly the percentage Jeb Bush should get if he ever runs for electin again:  25% (or less).  The man is a TRAITOR to conservatives, and NO person who even pretends to be a conservative should EVER support jeb Bush for ANY public office.


Jeb Bush, R.I.P.  You are now dead to me.  In all probability, yu are now dead to MOST conservatives.  I would advise Jeb Bush to change parties, but do I really HATE Democrats that much, and do I really LOVE the GOP (of which I am NOT a member)?  Nope. I  don't.  Thus, I hope Jeb Bush continues on his present path, and gradually fades into the sunset (or dustbin) of history, as if he had never existed.


P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). NO editing or revisions.