The media have two great loves in life: liberals, and conservative who "grow" and become liberals.  Jeb Bush, who clearly falls in the latter category, was the subject of a fawning piece in the New York Times.  The article starts with a big photo of Jeb doing charity work a month ago (that's big news now!) and talks about Jeb's "progression" from "headbanging" conservatism to a "more nuanced approach."  Yes, Bush calls conservatism "headbanging," which tells you in just one word what he thinks of conservatism.

Mr. Bush, 61, the former governor of Florida, insists that he will not contort himself to satisfy the ideologues of the Republican Party as he lays the groundwork for a possible presidential run in 2016.

Bush is so selfless!  I haven't seen anyone this pure in the pages of the New York Times since their last story on Elizabeth Warren.  If I put this article in the laundry with my socks and underwear, do you think they would all come out sparkling clean?

“There is an evolution in temperament and an evolution in judgment and an evolution in wisdom – and there is an evolution in his respect for others’ point of view,” said Al Cardenas, a longtime friend who insisted that Mr. Bush had “not changed his conservative values.”

I get it!  His judgment has changed, but not his values.

No, I don't get it.

Sally Bradshaw, who advised Mr. Bush during that period, said: “He learned from his loss that there are ways to bring people together and ways to drive people apart. The lesson from ’94 was that he wanted to bring people together.”

Controlling the border drives people apart? How about a message of limited government, respect for private property, and the rule of law?  Would that drive people apart, too?  Exactly how does Bush want to bring people together?

Jeb Bush once called for building prisons and emphasizing “punishment over therapy” for juvenile offenders. Today, he supports reforming the criminal justice system, arguing that incarceration can harden low-level lawbreakers into career criminals.

Fewer criminals to go to jail – check.  And what exactly is a "low-level" lawbreaker?  Is a drug addict a low-level lawbreaker?  Unless he's wealthy, where does he get the money  to do his low-level lawbreaking?  Often it's by theft or robbery.  New York City reduced its crime rate dramatically when it started cracking down on people committing "low-level" quality-of-life crimes.  When those people were off the streets, somehow, unmysteriously, "high-level" crime also declined.

In the past, he stressed using deportation to rid the United States of unauthorized immigrants. These days, he describes crossing the border illegally as “an act of love” by migrant parents and supports a path to citizenship for those who have done so.

An act of love?  When illegals get educations, health care, and other financial support at taxpayer expense, how is that an act of love?  When illegals commit crimes, be it theft, drug-dealing, or voting, how is that an act of love?  When illegals disregard the laws of our country and decide they have the right to be here, I see no act of love.  Instead, I see an act of entitlement.  Just like when yet another man named Bush decides it's his time to be president.  Has he been watching too much Game of Thrones?

He used to emphasize the rights of big landowners who felt cheated by environmental programs. Now, he is a champion of state-sponsored conservation, celebrated for his $2 billion program to restore the Everglades.

Have you ever driven through the Everglades?  I have.  It's swamp.  It has a fancy name, but it's a swamp.  Seven hundred and thirty-four square miles of it.  That's an enormous chunk of south central Florida.   Left untouched, it's uninhabitable and unuseful.  And we should be happy that Bush spent $2 billion of taxpayer money to keep it that way?  I'll bet even if he hadn't spent $2 billion, the swamp would still be there.  Regrettably.

As governor, Mr. Bush invested heavily in a plan to restore the Everglades, eroded over time by development and agriculture.

How awful!  Development and agriculture – those benefit only people!  Like his constituents.

He called the wetlands “a treasure” and kept a toy version of a manatee, an endangered aquatic mammal, on his desk.

Are we supposed to glean from this that he spent $2 billion of taxpayer money on the Everglades because he likes to play with toy animals?

For Mr. Bush, the pattern was illustrated last week by a head-turning statement on the legalization of same-sex marriage in Florida, when he urged “respect” for the unions and offered words of conciliation to same-sex couples “making lifetime commitments to each other.”

So he is still against gay marriage, except he's kind of for it.  Can you guess how judges he would appoint would rule on the matter?

The modifications, he said, are more opportunistic than ideological. “He saw that the Republican Party looked anti-everything and needed a bigger tent,” Dr. Corrigan said.

It seems the tent is bigger because of all the illegal aliens, Common Core proponents, "low-level" criminals, and radical environmentalists who are streaming into it.  This is not a big tent; this is the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus.

Mr. Bush hinted at this during the last Republican presidential primary when, dismayed by intraparty squabbling, he warned the candidates. “You have to maintain your principles,” he said, “but have a broader appeal.”

Because believing in limited government, protection of private property, and the free market doesn't have a broad appeal?  How would Bush know, since he's never tried it?  Perhaps because talking about illegal immigration and "saving" the Everglades is easier for him than liming the powers of government and cutting spending, both of which he seems to have no interest in.