You sound just like one of the Clinton apologists we had to suffer for 8 years. Maybe unintentionally. Can you really be part of the "it depends on what your definition of the word is, is" crowd? I hope not.
Here's your false premise #1: "Look over the major quotes he had on immigration in general and the impression I have is he apparently considered extending 245(i) as an option.
That's absolutely daft. This is supposed to be a conservative Republican we're talking about here. The Bush's are supposed to bring a breath of 'fresh air' to Washington, not more Clinton-like deceptions.
There isn't a normal, reasonable, logical, conservative Republican that could look at any one of those complete quotes or any combination of them and conclude, as you just did, that Bush was considering an extention of 245(i) or some other kind of amnesty.
Unless they're working under the assumption that he's just like Clinton.
You jump to the conclusion that he's considering another last, last amnesty from this quote?
"We must do a better job of STOPPING those who seek to come into our country ILLEGALLY. I SUPPORT STRICT BORDER ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS such as OPERATION HOLD THE LINE which concentrated border patrol officers and resources at known border-crossing points. I believe it is far more compassionate to turn away people at the border than to find and arrest them once they are living in our country illegally."
So, according to you Bush isn't saying that the job we have of tracking down the illegals we already have here now is going to be tough, so let's get tougher on the borders.
He's proposing an extention of 245(i) and amnesty?
Now we have the Chutch Brother's Las Vegas Mormon Mission Political Polling Place and Psychic Hotline.
I took that quote to mean that illegal immigration would be dramatically reduced after he took office.
So, if you snow us with your false premise #1, then your false premise #2 is the next obvious, illogical conclusion we all have to jump along with you to:
"Therefore, I think it is fair to say that he was pretty up front that some form of amnesty might be an option - it certainly was not ruled out."
That's pretty up front? It certainly was not ruled out? Bush certainly didn't rule out legalizing child pornography, either. Do we have to worry about that, too?
Now, it's ok for a Republican to throw out the Party platform and put an open borders Libertarian in charge of the INS, if he didn't rule it out?
I'll never trust him, again.
The fact that he didn't just come right out and say it during the campaign tells you what? That he was being deliberately deceptive and hiding his open borders, immigration agenda.
Conservatives are going to logically conclude that Bush Jr. is going to ashcan 120 years of tough Republican Party immigration planks and pull a Bush Sr. by offering another amnesty when Republicans had PROMISED the American people that there would NEVER be another amnesty?
What Bush's quote on Proposition 187 meant to a lot of us was don't take the parents status out on the kids.
That's dishonest for Bush to say anyway, because the kids were being punished for their own illegal status.
But even you can't reasonably expect that what we were supposed to conclude Bush meant was that he was going to amnesty them all? Can you?
"...'scientific polls' that some folks here insist on being the measure of the political attitudes."
I've said that polls aren't perfect, but what I also said is that I'll believe a Zogby poll before I BELIEVE YOUR BROTHER'S OPINIONS!
You resent the implication that you're liberal and yet what poll do you come up with? THE NEW YORK TIMES!
You use a poll of theirs that doesn't even mention immigration to conclude that immigration isn't even an issue? Not even with conservatives?
You, Bush and your friends at the LIBERAL New York Times are in for a surprise.