George W. Bush Tells Jeb to ‘Run,’ Says Jeb vs. Hillary Would Make ‘Fantastic Photo’ [VIDEO]

Former President George W. Bush says he isn’t interested in playing on the national political stage any longer. But for family, he’s making an exception.

Asked in an interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer whether he thinks his brother former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush should run for president in 2016, the ex-president was unequivocal.

“He’d be a marvelous candidate if he chooses to do so. He doesn’t need my counsel ’cause he knows what it is, which is ‘run,’ ” the elder Bush brother said about Jeb’s possible candidacy, in an interview that first aired Wednesday on “World News with Diane Sawyer.” “But whether he does or not, it’s a very personal decision.”

The former president even allowed himself to picture the potential 2016 matchup: Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. It would be a family rematch of the 1992 election, when George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton.

“It’ll be a fantastic photo here. It would certainly eclipse the museum and the center,” Bush said on the eve of the formal opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Center at Southern Methodist University, just outside Dallas. “I’m interested in politics. I’m, you know, I’m fascinated by all the gossip and stuff that goes on. But the field won’t be become clear ’til after the midterms.”

Asked for a word of advice to the Republican Party, the former president struck an optimistic note amid rounds of GOP soul-searching: “You will exist in the future,” he said with a smile.

On several major issues, though, Bush made clear he’s staying away from day-to-day political battles.

As I have posted before, I am fine with deporting just about all the illegals here, that is my preferred solution. Ike did it, we could do it again but the political will do to that just does not exist. The Marxist media would howl 24/7 for months if not years. That sadly is the situation.

Here is my understanding of Pauls' preferred solution. He might be going wobbly, I hope not.

First we secure the border, the border must be certified secure by ICE, border patrol or some agency tasked with auditing the border. Congress then must vote (getting them on record) to either accept of reject the certification.

Second existing laws are enforced while the border is being secured. Existing laws are enforced after the border is secured.

Third illegals will be denied any federal benefits such as welfare, food stamps, etc.

Five years after the border is secured the remaining illegals will be allowed to applied for a work visa. There is be no new pathway to citizenship.

The only amnesty in Pauls outline of a plan is that illegals that get a work visa will not be required to return to their home country in order to apply for citizenship.

If I understand Pauls "plan" correctly it is probably the best we could hope for given a Marxist media and a powerful Marxist Democratic party that encourages illegal immigration. In fact I am certain that the Marxists in Congress would never allow Pauls plan to see the Senate floor.

I am on your side on this issue, and maybe I am wrong but I think Paul is on your side too. I hope and pray he is, because if the plan in the Senate right now passes Texas will turn blue in not to many years. Given a blue Texas the GOP is finished as a national political party. I think Paul (and Cruz) both know that. I am very disappointed in Rubio, I had high hopes for him but he has turned out to be a GOPe stooge. Like all of us I am keeping a close eye on Paul, if Paul folds the game is over so rather then bash him I'm supporting him since I believe he will not support the gang of 8 bill.

(I am furious at both Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 for their failure as presidents to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws.)

The law says that if you are here illegally you must return to your home country. But we stopped enforcing that law many decades ago.

The argument for allowing open borders is an economic one. I will present it as best I know it. I am in no way endorsing it.

If you look at Japan, Russia and Europe you see an aging declining population. The USA is trying to avoid that.

Economic growth requires a younger growing population. Young growing families work hard so they can buy stuff, like houses, cars, TVs etc. that in turn generates economic activity as well as taxes. Taxes remember are necessary to fund the welfare state. Without ever increasing taxes the welfare state will collapse. Since natural born citizens are not reproducing at the rate necessary to maintain the state and since the huge baby boomer generation is retiring the state requires a massive influx of young workers to avoid collapse. The only way to acquire this massive influx of young workers is to allow just about anyone that wants to come here to come here. Ergo open borders and weak immigration enforcement. Blame LBJ and the Great Society.

I can agree that there is an economic consideration for immigration, legal and illegal, positive and negative. However. the USA for a number of years has had immigration more tuned to political/social objectives than economic. My parents came to the USA from Russia at the start of the 1900s and there was both economic(for the USA and my parents) and political(for my parents). Your argument on it’s face would appear to represent an intent for allowing huge programs of immigration for the purpose of benefiting/bolstering a needed USA economy.Actually when immigration over the last decades is critically looked at/analyzed you will see most of it is political. Immigrants from south of the border for voting power. Immigrants from Eastern Europe for goody-feely reasons of political persecution. Immigrants from Islamic nations to prepare the USA for Sharia law. Immigrants from SE Asia to assuage a National feeling of need to help those whom we failed in a war. To argue that the USA did not have or does not have the native young population to carry on the economics and production needed by this Nation is a specious argument as far as for my take. The Nation does not need a bunch of freeloader families to be sustainable. Perhaps the Boston incident can be a lesson.

Good. And while you’re at it, please write again and ask him to quit talking it up and acting like he’s in support. Ask him to condemn it and call it what it is, sheer LUNACY and to put those senators and especially the Republican senators on notice. They are betraying the citizens of America and their CONSTITUENTS who sent them to DC to defend the constitution, defend the nation, defend the borders, defend our rights and we will refuse to vote for or support those who betray us!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.