Can Jeb! win by being the only “adult’ in the room?
Jeb! Discusses Immigration, Iran as “Biggest Supporter of Terrorism” with Telemundo
While Jeb’s Telemundo interview this week has been getting attention for his statements about
amnesty immigration reform, there is another interesting tidbit in there about Iran that sheds some light on his push back against Mike Huckabee’s comments evoking the Holocaust.
Personally, I’m not surprised that Jeb is promising action on immigration reform to Spanish-speaking audiences; he promises the same thing to English-speaking audiences and has been quite defiant about maintaining his position throughout the primary.
Here’s a transcript (translated from Spanish) of part of the immigration portion of the interview:
José Díaz-Balart: How do we resolve the problem of 11 million undocumented and what do you think is the formula for the border to be secured and deal with those those people who are here and contribute to the economy with their hard work?
Jeb Bush: Look, first of all, to arrive here legally has to be easier than to arrive here illegally. So one must have a commitment with a border, and JUST as important, there’s 40 percent of the undocumented that arrived here legally, that have a legal visa and they overstayed And they don’t go back. We must have a plan to solve that. It’s not the most complicated thing in our country, we can do it. We can accomplish it. But for the 11 million people, I believe that they come from out of the shadows they get a work permit, they pay taxes naturally, they pay small fine they, learn English. They don’t get benefits from the federal government, but they come out of the shadows. And they obtain a legal status after some time. I believe that’s the place where one could obtain consensus to solve this problem.
José Díaz-Balart: In your book you say that group should never have access to citizenship. Is that a viable option, in other words to create a category of second class citizens that can be here legally but never have access to full residency or citizenship.
Jeb Bush: One could have access if they receive legal status one way or the other. But what I don’t believe should be done is to cut in front of the line, you know? That’s the most difficult aspect of all this, but we must remember one thing: more than half of the people who received amnesty, because in 87 that was amnesty, more than half, they didn’t even try to become a citizen. The majority of these people want to work, and want to live out of the shadows. They want to receive the respect given by this country.
I did find it interesting that a majority of those who benefited from the 1986 Immigration and Control Act did not seek citizenship.
Here’s the full Jeb interview in Spanish for our Spanish-speaking readers:
We know where Jeb stands on immigration, so what I found more compelling were his comments about Iran:
José Díaz-Balart: Former governor Mike Huckabee speaking on the Iran deal said that president Obama was marching the people of Israel towards the oven. Your reaction to that first, and then your reaction to President Obama saying that our only option is this plan or war?
Jeb Bush: That is not true. This agreement does not benefit the international interest of this country. It’s going to create more insecurity in the region, it’s going to create maybe the proliferation of nuclear bombs not only in Iran, but also in the neighboring countries.
They don’t do anything to recognize that Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the region. So I believe it’s another example of a policy based on the fact that people change without pressure. They’re going to receive $150 billion dollars in less than a year to promote insecurity. I don’t believe that’s the right thing to be done. But besides, in the case of Mike Huckabee, who is my friend, those words, that use of those type of words, doesn’t help. Doesn’t help. We must have a more civil politics in this country. [emphasis added]
Jeb’s focus on civility may be the reason that Ted Cruz sees him as afraid to speak candidly about jihad and America’s role in fighting—and funding—it.
Cruz maintained Thursday that if world powers lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for the country curbing its nuclear program, members of the Obama administration “will be the leading global financiers” of terrorism.“When you send billions of dollars to jihadists trying to kill Americans, you bear responsibility for the murder they carry out with the money you have given them,” Cruz said on the “Chad Hasty Show.”“You know, one of the reasons Republicans keep getting clobbered is we have leaders like Mitt Romney and like Jeb Bush, who are afraid to say that,” Cruz said.
Based on Jeb’s Telemundo interview, he seems to be saying essentially the same thing that Cruz is saying, but he stops short of pointing out Obama’s role in Iran being “the biggest supporter of terrorism” and their using money from the U. S. to “promote insecurity.” “Insecurity,” apparently, is Jeb speak for terrorism and/or nuclear proliferation.
Jeb, like Mitt Romney before him, apparently believes that he can win the presidency by being the only “adult” in the room. Is he right?
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
he won’t even get the nomination … hes the first city raised Bush … big hat, no cattle …
The only adult in the room? Ha Ha Ha! That’s funny. That would be like Rachel Dolezal claiming to be the only black in the room.
Huckabee is right.
The media and the beltway GOP “leaders” are going to have a rude shock when the primaries begin.
Or we are when the DIABLO’s get done manipulating the convention.
The candidates are acting like sheep letting the media dictate who will be part of the debate. In effect, they have ceded to the media, FoxNN, the right to decide who will make the case to us. What makes Jeb Bush a first tier man when nobody in the grassroots want him?
Jellyfish venom is “one of the deadliest toxins on earth.” And of course Jebby will use it against conservatives.
Jeb, in his ‘civility’, misses one of the more important parts of the immigration issue for conservative Republicans:
fix the border problem.
Or, to borrow the words of the much-discredited John McCain, “build the danged fence.”
Securing the border is the right of a sovereign state. Mexico secures its southern border, we should do the same. The bare minimum is a proper fence, beefed-up border patrol, no sanctuary cities, and a polite return of those who cross.
Ted Cruz gets this, Jeb Bush does not. Fix the border security problem AND THEN the other points Bush makes become more reasonable and supportable — or at least debatable. Of course we’ll have to do something about the 11 million illegals in our country now; we are not going to give the Attorney General power to do midnight raids to round them up. Of course we’re going to fix the idiocies of our current legal immigration laws. And so on.
But without fixing the border there is no support whatsoever from the conservatives, and that dooms to failure any attempt at “comprehensive” reform.
“we are not going to give the Attorney General power to do midnight raids to round them up.”
Doesn’t the AG already have that power? Are you slipping into the fallacy that we need a special law requiring the AG to enforce the law?
If the mass of illegal aliens push hard enough, such rounding them up could happen.
I guarantee if we had thousands of Canadian pouring through our borders, there would be mass roundups and no questions would be asked.
No, he gets it, and he’s right.
We need the Guest Worker program that Ted Kennedy refused, over and against the advice of both parties, to include in the last round of immigration reform. Ted Kennedy adamantly refused to believe that people come here just to work, and are fully capable of making a rational decision to forego citizenship because they just came here to work.
He’s not the only adult in the room. That’s what is so wonderful about this class of Republican candidates.
We don’t have jobs for AMERICANS, Valerie. We are importing foreigners who are replacing AMERICANS in the work place. We don’t need guest workers. We need a moratorium on immigration; we need to force the illegal aliens to leave.
This is the “lump of labor” fallacy.
It’s nonsense; however, applying the label “childish” to it would be just calling names.
In reality, unless there are severe impediments to the creation of new businesses and jobs – in which case you’ve got other problems – the number of jobs is proportional to the number of people looking for work – and no medium or long term economic forecasting can ork without making that assumption.
Sorry, but the fallacy of this explanation of this “fallacy” is that immigration “increases the size of the economy.” We have no proof of that, and it’s difficult to do when many of the immigrants are on entitlements and many others send most of their money to their home countries.
I’ve pointed out many times the power of gradients.
What we’re seeing in Calais right now is a prime demonstration. In that case the gradients are not huge, and are pretty subtle. Yet people respond to them powerfully.
Here, there is a powerful, single gradient that has to be addressed. If someone makes it into the U.S. illegally (i.e., INVADES), they can do much better for themselves and their family than they otherwise could.
That has to be taken away. They cannot be allowed to work here, and any employer has to be effectively prohibited from employing them. They cannot obtain public benefits here. Period.
There will, in that circumstance, be no gradient to draw OR KEEP them here, and no “round-up” will be required. Those invaders here will simply self-deport over time, and it won’t take long.
In other words, no more Rags to Robes!
Exactly. The pro-amnesty crowd pretends that there’s nothing between “give legal status to all aliens” and “round up every last one of them and ship them back.”
The most obvious and easiest option between those poles is to change the incentive structure, making it less attractive to cross the border illegally in the first place:
1. Abolish “sanctuary cities.”
2. Deport illegals whenever it can be done, making the possibility of deportation more of a real threat in the minds of all the others (i.e. “pour encourager les autres”).
3. No tax-funded benefits for children of illegals.
4. Crack down on employers of illegals.
5. Et cetera.
The old “We can’t round them all up!” saw is just an excuse for leaving the pro-illegal incentive structure in place.
It’s called CONSEQUENCES.
Break the law and face the consequences.
Enforce the law and deliver consequences.
How many employers would hire illegals if they were sufficiently punished?
7. Monetary rewards for “good citizens” who turn in people who employ illegals. That would clear them out in a matter of weeks! Liberals would be the first ones on the telephone.
He does get that. “To arrive here legally has to be easier than to arrive here illegally. So one must have a commitment with a border”. What’s more, he points out that fixing the situation on the border is not enough. 40% of illegal immigrants got here legally, so no border measures would have stopped them. He says we need to do something about that.
As yes, as you acknowledge, of course something will have to be worked out for the people who are already here; but I think he’s wrong to discuss it. Candidates should refuse to discuss how the mess will be cleaned up until after the flood has been permanently stopped. Because any discussion of what arrangements will be made can only encourage more people to come in before the border is closed, and take advantage of those arrangements.
“Because any discussion of what arrangements will be made can only encourage more people to come in before the border is closed, and take advantage of those arrangements.”
Let’s not be dense. This is a feature, not a bug.
First thing we do, let’s kill all the political programmers.
yeah, when Jeb says it has to be easier to come legally than illegally … what does that mean? Knowing a little of his La Raza pals, it means he’ll do little about illegal immigration, and they get to stay and he will document them. But he’ll make legal immigration even easier.
He told us he doesn’t need conservatives to win, so he’s just being mealy mouthed. The White House opens the borders, and blames Republicans for sanctuary cities and the death of Americans at the hands of illegals.
That blame is based on Republicans’ refusal to pass “reform”, by which they mean amnesty. So open borders is Republicans’ fault, because they don’t grant amnesty for 20 million and chain immigration for another 50 million. Jeb basically agrees, since he can’t even state that the border must be closed, and successful crossing is not a free ticket.
We have to give the attorney general the right to do midnight raids and round them up if we are serious about our sovereignty and deciding not only who comes to our country but also who stays in it. We can force the 30 million to self-deport by the simple expedient of denying them jobs, housing, schools and other services, and denying their children the right to remain here. If your parents go home, you must go too since you would not have been born here had they not entered illegally. We cannot let invaders use anchor babies who will one day vote in people to support their causes. It’s harsh, but it’s a deterrent to future invaders. It’s not about racism or any such nonsense, it’s about America deciding who will be Americans, about America being a nation of laws.
Uh, no offense but Mexico secures its northern border. Just ask that soldier (or Marine – I don’t remember which) who spent over six months in Mexico’s graybar resorts.
If, by “adult”, you mean milquetoast spineless democrat wannabe who has irrevocably alienated the Republican base, then, “no.”
I watched Patrick Buchannan sink the the re-election campaign of GHW Bush on national TV. That speech was billed as “red meat” for the “base,” and it certainly made the people pleased to call themselves the base happy. It left the vast majority of the people who had supported the Republican Party for years aghast, and enervated. I talked to a few. They came away from that convention convinced that they were screwed.
I watched a fine GOP candidate, John McCain, torn a new one regularly by people pleased to call themselves the Republican base, who were loudly displeased to the point of calling every prominent Republican a RINO, and who loudly threatened to take their marbles and go home, and who loudly said that anything that smacked of “compromise” was “treason.”
I call them “losers.”
Patrick Buchanan didn’t sink GHWB. GHWB did, when he said, and I quote, “Read my lips, no new taxes.”
The base did not sink McCain either.
Your grasp of history is quite weak.
We didn’t sink McCain, Valerie. I disliked McCain but convinced myself to vote for him because the alternative was untenable. I watched Sarah Palin bring the GOP to its feet, and I also watched as McCain and his aides stabbed her in the back because she drew bigger crowds than he ever could have. The GOP base was pulling the lever for Palin. We gave McCain a fighting chance because of her, and he fecked it up. Then he had he gall to tell us that Obama was a good guy, a patriot who wouldn’t harm America. You must have had your eyes on Obama because you certainly missed the base’s reaction to McCain’s running mate. He screwed Palin and us over.
He’s not being an “adult” by criticizing Huckabee’s statement. I have no time at all for Huckabee, and consider him to be a pro-life Democrat, but he said exactly the right thing on this one. The threat from Iran is literally a continuation of the Holocaust.
Not a second Holocaust but a continuation of the first one; the Arabs of Palestine, the Moslem Brotherhood, and the secular Baathists were all Hitler’s allies in WW2, and never gave up his agenda. They tried to continue his work in 1947-49, and have kept the attempt up ever since. And that is the cause which the Iranian mullahs have attached themselves to, and have every intention of implementing should they get the chance.
Aytalloh Khamanei specifically denies that he wants too kill Jews, maybe because he has to, but he denies that. He claims he wants to force Jews to leave Israel by waging war, or to expel them after victory (well actually the UN would arrange their expulsion) claiming that most have citizenship in some other country, and that about 2 million who could prove genuine roots could stay, under Islamic rule.
He says all places that were once ruled by Moslems have to be put back under Islamic rule, but Israel is a special case because it is an ally of the Great Satan, has waged war on Moslem from time to time (unlike Spain, say) and occupies Jerusalem.
He claims to be agnostic about the Holocaust.
1) ¡Jeb! is purely a creation of and a creature of the DIABLO’s who run the Republican Party.
2) Those same DIABLO’s have been promising for decades to fix immigration and the border, but their every action in that time has been to enable the erasure of the border, functional amnesty, and open warfare on those who are American citizens. Not once have they even credibly pretended to keep their word.
3) Same people who lied to us about what they were going to do if we gave them both houses of Congress in 2014.
4) What basis is there to believe that their gun-grabbing, pro-abortion [those two based on his being a founding director of Michael Bloomberg’s “Bloomberg Foundation” with fiduciary responsibility for every cent they have spent fighting the Second Amendment and giving money in $50 million chunks to the butchers of Planned Parenthood], pro-Common Core, anti-Conservative [his own statements], and vehemently Permanent Open Borders creature is doing anything but lying again?
Now that’s not true. They haven’t been promising to fix immigration – if by that you mean have a law that’s in line wth reality – and certainly not for decades. What are you imagining?
There has been some talk of controlling the border or something like that, but only because it seems to be neecessary to pass a bill, and for less than ten years I think.
Border control is actually a poison pill, designed to kill both amnesty and any changes in legal future immigration, and it is about time it is recognized as such.
“Insecurity,” apparently, is Jeb speak for terrorism and/or nuclear proliferation.
Jeb, like Mitt Romney before him, apparently believes that he can win the presidency by being the only “adult” in the room.
So Jeb thinks speaking in euphemisms makes him an adult? Funding terrorism, as Obama is doing with his Iran “deal,” is stupid and dangerous and wrong, and any politician with any stones at all should have no problem saying that.
The last thing Americans need is another weasel-y wordsmith trying to mask unpleasant truths with idiotic phrases like “overseas contingency operation” or “workplace violence.”
Iran never speaks in euphemisms … they will cheat and lie and promise to nuke Israel then US. “That’s not helpful”.
Obama never uses euphemisms toward Republicans. Bush or the tea party are responsible for all evils, we are racists, jingoists that owe all blacks, and the world, more than reparations for our white micro and macro aggressions. “That’s not helpful”.
Boehner and McConnell express open contempt for the tea party, the conservative base that handed them both houses. “That’s not helpful”.
Who will Jeb be helpful toward? Obviously not toward the base. He’s campaigning on being helpfully compromising, at best. At worst he is lying to the base about having any interest at all in their position, and he will start in the middle and compromise his way toward open borders, and surrender globally.
Jeb only looks remotely adult to progressives that appreciate a compromising RINO, but they will still hate him for not being full blown globalist/commie.
“Jeb’s focus on civility may be the reason that Ted Cruz sees him as afraid to speak candidly about jihad and America’s role in fighting—and funding—it.”
Nonsense. Ted Cruz is one of the sharpest knives in the GOP drawer. It’s not Bush’s civility that irks Cruz; its his neatly-mouthedness, of the same sort that afflicted McCain and Romney. What other conclusion can be drawn from Obama’s gift to he Iranians? Why is Bush afraid to call the POTUS a terrorist supporter? If you won’t fight in your own country, how will you fight the Iranians? Jeb is not the adult in the room; he’s the teen who’s scared to face down the high school bully.
Jeb! Boehner! McConnell! McCain! Graham! Prebus!
You know what I can’t stand about Jeb Bush? It’s the look on his face, the tone of his voice, and the way he talks down to people. He talks in this slow patient, reasonable-sounding voice as if the voters are village idiots and he’s the knowledgeable adult. He was fine enough for governor of FL. His wife dictates his stance on immigration. I don’t care that his wife is Mexican or wherever she’s from. I do care that he’s assented to her idea that every Hispanic has a right to come to the USA in contravention of our laws, either by entering or overstaying.
Ah ha ha ha ha! This!
He spoke like that to me once, at an environmental thingy my brother and I were attending, and my brother later described it as, “It’s like he was speaking in crayon to you, as though you were a ‘special’ student or something.” I wonder whether he or his advisers even realize how annoying an affect that is?
“…speaking in crayon…” Simple and on point, this needs to become a meme wherever you (y’all) post after any debate he is in. I’m using this Amy, Thanks.
It might be a carefully cultivated persona intended to convey earnest sincerity. It’s off-puttingly joyless and humorless.
There are also his insinuations that people who come here illegally, especially Latinos, are really better people than the rest of us, particularly northern European types. He seems to believe that this will be a better country if the demographics are more like Mexico and Guatemala. In this, he is just like the leftist anti-white multiculti ideologues.
If they were better and their cultures superior, they wouldn’t be fleeing their hellholes to cone to predominantly white America, now, would they?
I don’t know if he says that, or if what he says comes across as that, but that sounds like he is referring to social conservatism and concern for making life better for their children.
And it’s true that they are better people on average, although the native born U.S. average is brought down considerably by poor urbanized African Americans who attended public schools and do not have a strong religious background.
They are definitely better most of the time than they people who would otherwise live in the same housing. Only a fool, or a fanatic, or a total ignoramus, would deny that.
Your definition of adult must be different than mine.
He’s the type who would see himself as “the only adult in the room”, in the sense that he believes that all the rest of us are witless children who aren’t sophisticated enough to understand what’s really good for us. But once he and his other self-appointed Adults tell us what we need to do, and give us no option (as you do with a recalcitrant 4-year-old), we’ll handily fall into line and accept the wisdom of our Elders And Betters.
That goes along with his bold statements that he’s not going to bother to pander to what he sees as the loony Limbaugh-listening right wing, as though he sees conservative Republicans and Tea Party supporters as mere cranky, foot-stompy toddlers who will sit down, shut up and eat their peas, and accept him as heir apparent for the GOP nomination once it comes down to brass tacks.
But the interesting thing is how long this “adult” narrative has been in the pipeline. Jeb! (and his squishy allies at NRO) have actually been pushing this “Jeb Bush, The Only Adult In The Room” meme since as far back as 2012. It’s almost like there’s some RINO form of Journo-List that’s helping him along here.
This is the same meme that was used to push Romney on us, too. I remember writing a post about it back then, but anyway, here’s the general gist of it: http://www.weaselzippers.us/90742-team-romney-now-claiming-hes-the-only-adult-in-the-room/
It didn’t work too well for Romney, and conservatives are more angry/frustrated than we were in 2012, so it’s likely to be a disaster for Jeb!.
#TheStupidParty: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. There’s actually another term for that…
Note to GOP:
I will never vote for Jeb!
I don’t pray often enough, but I’ve been praying lately, “Dear God, don’t force me to choose between Jeb and Hillary. Please, please, please…”
If insulting the conservative base and courting rich Democrats for campaign donations are what turn a Republican into an “adult,” then Jeb passes that test easily. He’s an “adult” in the same sense that Democrats mean when they talk about Republican-appointed justices “growing” while they sit on the Supreme Court.
Excellent point, and here’s another example: A Florida Democrat who hated him when he was Governor (to his credit, he did actually act like more or less like a conservative when he was Governor), now looks at the way he’s “grown” (i.e. moved leftward) and — all the way back in January — declared him “the ‘adult’” [there’s that narrative again!] who might now be able to “improve Florida’s national reputation”.
He’s not going to be the adult. He’s the Chamber of Commerce’s bitch. And La Raza’s.
I will not vote for Jeb Bush under any circumstances.
As a candidate, he’s Romney 2.0. He’s a political kite, assuming whatever politics he needs to at the moment, predicated on the winds. That’s why he exhibited some conservatism while governor of Florida, but has changed so much he’s now essentially a moderate Democrat. He also told people like me, more than once, to fuck off. Well… okay then.
Preemptive strike: If any voter does not vote for a candidate, is it the candidate’s fault or the voter’s fault? I ask because the usual suspects around here insist it’s the voter’s fault. How incredibly stupid is that? But, that’s the mindset of your basic establishment Republican.
The GOP continues to hold on to a hoary old idea that was once true – that conservatives can be ignored because they’ll eventually toe the line and vote GOP because they have no where else to go. It has cost them the last two presidential elections. Somehow they just ignore the fact that neither the Dems nor the GOP has anything near a majority of voters – ‘unaffiliated/independent’ holds the largest plurality.
As of July 12, 2015, 23% of registered voters were Republicans, 28% were Democrats, and a whopping 46% were unaffiliated/independent. Of that 46% of independents, only 41% ‘lean’ GOP, while 47% lean Democrat.
How smart is it to tell your base to fuck off, as Bush done repeatedly?
By all means, if you want to lose to the Democrat nominee in 2016 by 5%, go ahead and vote for Jeb Bush or whichever other RINO the GOP paves the way for.
Adult? LOL. His and the GOP’s is the magical thinking of a child.
I meant to attach the GAllup link:
So, being an “adult” means trying to make everyone except the base of your party happy?
I think by adult they mean only say things that can withstand scrutiny.
Arguing with the base is a separate matter that needs to be done. There has been 40 years or so of unrefuted propaganda by a federal bureacracy and its associated union.
Jeb Bush still has lots of problems with the logic trap that is pervasive among the Republican base on immigration, and he doesn’t even catch what the logic trap is.
He thinks “cutting in front of the line” means getting the right to become a citizen.
But actually, “cutting in front of the line” means they getting a work permit and coming out of the shadows.
Furthermore, most illegal immigrants don’t care that much about citizenship, and the base doesn’t care at all. Anyone arguing that the crucial thing is citizenship just sounds like he is trying to fool people.
The logic trap, of course, is the idea that people shouldn’t benefit from “cutting in front of the line”
No – to get anywhere you have to argue the position that there’s nothing very wrong with that. Because you can’t argue the alternative that people shouldn’t benefit from “cutting in front of the line” because that’s not a realistic position. Even the idea that people shouldn’t benefit in the future from “cutting in front of the line”
As long as that is the driving consideration, (and you want severe restriction below the natural level) immigration policy will be unworkable. That is the logic trap.
Now the base is willing to let people benefit from having “cut in front of the line” in the past but they want it to be the last time.
Sounds plausible, but < that can never happen as long as the United States remains the kind of country it is. Is “border control” working any where else in the world? Europe, Australia? You have some examples? I works maybe when there’s another place to go that’s equally good.
Worse, the base wants it demonstrated that there will be no more illegal immigrants before work permits are issued.
They can never be satisfied. It obviously would not be cut down to zero. No policy will work 100%, and they demand 100%. You need a high risk of death to even lower it.
And anyway you have Trump calling for deportation (not even self-deportation) and claiming he can accomplish it.
Jeb Bush simply has not really thought deeply on this subject.
Jeb Bush also said:
Which means the best possible fence wouldn’t end that.
Jeb Bush claims there’s some imaginary way to end illegal immigration that that’s not complicated. Maybe. A Great Recession maybe could help.
There is another one of course. And that’s maybe letting anyone immigrate who can pay X number of Dollars – a figure that will be set below what the smugglers charge.
Jeb Bush also said:
And, while he segues into talking about the border, I think he means you have to make it easier to immigrate legally.
Because if it impossible to immmigrate legally, then, by definition, coming illegally, or overstaying a visa, is easier than coming legally!
Of course, he has no good plan for that either, because he wants to reduce the possibilities of legal immigration that is driven by one strong motivation, which is family. Like as if if you increase some possibilities, you have to “pay for” it by reducing others.
That’s the one thing taht’s destroyed every comprehensive immigration bill in Congress. Agreeing on a number first, or at all.
I don’t understand one thing that Jeb Bush said about Iran, as it was translated.
Should the word fact there be translated idea?
The left has its vocabulary, and the hacks of the GOP have theirs.
Apparently, “adult” means “rino milquetoast.”
His hired professional’s advise to not “engage” in the debates is going to be disastrous. But this is the only thing they can say since he is incapable of doing so anyway especially on immigration. His immigration opinions and policy come from his marriage. This cultural prism is completely at odds with the rest of the country. Bush and Marco “Gang of Eight” Rubio were counting on Obama having beaten the illegal immigration brouhaha into submission with his executive orders and winning in court cases. It was “settled”. Only it wasn’t. Judge Hanen, Fifth Circuit, then The Donald kicked over the taboo about discussing it being in poor taste and tacky. Rubio AND Bush may have the worst timing ever in running for president. Their zillionaire contributors must be furious.
To call someone ‘the adult in the room’ says nothing about the person so designated. All it does is relegate everyone else to less than adult status.
This is not adult behavior.