Reply With Quote
Super PACs are a disgrace. The Supreme Court should be ashamed. We need a cons utional amendment specifying reformed campaign finance rules.
Jeb Bush’s historic crypto-campaign: How the GOP frontrunner made American democracy even more corrupt
After spending a half-year or so charging wealthy donors from Wall Street to Silicon Valley remarkable amounts of money — sometimes as much as $100,000 — to ask him questions, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush now says he’s ready to finally make his presidential campaign official.
although Bush-the-man may be a bit dull, his White House strategy — particularly his decision to outsource many traditional campaign activities to a super PAC — is on the cutting edge. In fact, even if Jeb falls short of his goal and does not become the third-straight Republican president named Bush, it’s possible that his fulsome embrace of the post-Citizens United era of campaign finance will be a significant legacy. Win or lose, Bush 2016 will have a lasting influence on U.S. politics. It just might not be the kind Bush hopes.
Bush has taken a flimsy regulatory status quo and, with the help of the Supreme Court as well as his trusted “Right to Rise” super PAC, essentially burnt it to a crisp.
As law professor and campaign finance expert Richard L. Hasen wrote in Slate back in April, Bush’s unwillingness to even admit he was exploring a run, when coupled with his decision to have a super PAC run much of his campaign, “has allowed him to undermine one of the last rules in campaign finance law” we have left. Not only has he been able to keep asking donors to send his super PAC seven-figure checks, but he’s also made clear that any separation between his official campaign and his super PAC will be nominal at best. So far, this has worked out well for Bush, who reportedly has already raised nearly $100 million. But by implicitly acknowledging that his super PAC won’t really be “independent,” he’s also taken an axe to one of the Citizens United majority ruling’s foundational arguments.
To be fair to Bush, that argument was always absurd on its face. It held that unlimited contributions to “outside” groups like super PACs would not only not lead to corruption, but that they wouldn’t even lead to the perception of corruption — because these groups would operate independently. In other words, if Sheldon Adelson wants to give, say, Sen. Marco Rubio’s super PAC $10 million, there should be no worries about corruption so long as the people running the super PAC and his campaign never communicate. Most people outside the Federalist Society fantasyland of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s head immediately knew campaigns would find a way to sneak around this.
By announcing that his super PAC will handle much of the campaign’s nuts-and-bolts, Bush made clear to donors that they need not worry about their money going to waste. Because he ostensibly hadn’t decided yet whether to run for president, he could solicit six- and seven-figure donations; and because he was outsourcing to his super PAC, donors knew that giving “Right to Rise” $100,000 now was tantamount to giving $100,000 to the Jeb Bush campaign. For those worried that folks like the Koch brothers had insufficient influence over presidential candidates, Bush’s new model was a godsend. Better still, since super PACs don’t have to disclose their donors’ names, this could all be accomplished without having to worry about public condemnation.
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/15/jeb_..._more_corrupt/
Super PACs are a disgrace. The Supreme Court should be ashamed. We need a cons utional amendment specifying reformed campaign finance rules.
The Middle East Policy of President John Ellis ‘Jeb’ Bush: Iraq, Iran Wars?
Jeb Bush announced his run for president on Monday. It is hard to know what his Middle East policy would be from his wibbly wobbly pronouncements, but that it would be imperial and aggressive can be deduced from his foreign policy advisory team, including Neoconservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the war of aggression on Iraq in 2003.
Jeb Bush regretted the lapse of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act and dislikes the Bill or Rights’ Fourth Amendment to the US Cons ution, questioning any restraint on government search and seizure of Americans’ mail and personal effects. In this he does not differ from Barack Obama.
Bush rejects President Obama’s diplomacy with Iran. He views Iran as “a nation that has waged a relentless campaign of terror and war-by-proxy against U.S. troops and American allies for more than three decades.” He damns the current Kerry-Zarif negotiations as leaving in place Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and potentially allowing it to brandish nukes and intimidate other countries in the Middle East. Apparently, as president Bush would cancel or renege on any deal reached with Iran and put the two countries on a war footing.
(Iran has not invaded another country in modern history. “Terrorists” it supports include the Shiite militias of Iraq with which the US is now allied to which it arms and to whom it gives close air support. So it is difficult to see how Bush can call Iran terrorist for supporting these groups but can exempt the US itself. Iran also supports Hizbullah in Lebanon, which grew up as a resistance movement against the two-decades long Israeli occupation of ten percent of Lebanese territory, which caused the 1.3 million
Lebanese Shiites to mobilize to regain their homeland. International law does not see movements of resistance to occupation as “terrorist.”)
Bush pledges knee-jerk support to the far, far-right Israeli government of PM Binyamin Netanyahu. He referred to the Obama administration pressure on Tel Aviv to grant statehood to the stateless and rights-less Palestinians as “schoolyard antics.” He as much as said he would give up any pressure on Netanyahu for a two-state solution and surrender to the latter on all major policy issues. Bush made the mistake of associating himself with his father’s secretary of state James Baker, an old-time realist who has ties to the Gulf Arab monarchies and who has long been annoyed by Israeli aggression, expansionism and intransigence. As a result, Bush lost the support of billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, widely accused of corruption in China, who put $100 billion into the 2012 presidential campaign and now seems to be supporting Mario Rubio. Bush is clearly hoping that by groveling to Netanyahu he can patch things up with Adelson.
Bush more or less supports his brother’s Iraq War of 2003 and the subsequent brutal military occupation. Rather than seeing Daesh (ISIS, ISIL) as a reaction to that occupation by displaced Sunni Arabs, he blames its rise on Obama’s withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in 2011, a withdrawal negotiated by . . . George W. Bush.
Bush wants to have more US troops on the ground in Iraq and to embed them in Iraqi military units. He appears not to know that there is virtually no extant Iraqi army in which to embed US troops. He seems also not to know that most of the troops are pro-Iran Shiites who would probably frag the Americans if Bush does to Iran what he says he is planning to do to it. The really effective fighting forces are Shiite militias who probably would not accept American embeds. In short, his plan for Iraq seems both aggressive and escalationist and also completely ignorant of the realities on the ground there. Where have we seen a Bush with that approach to Iraq before?
Bush doesn’t care anything about ordinary Middle Easterners or military dictators who oppress and disappear them: CNN reported, “Jeb Bush says he can’t understand why the White House has told Sisi “you’re not on our team” as jihadism spreads like wildfire through the Middle East.”
The Bushes are closely connected to the oil industry and likely Jeb would pursue policies intended to benefit it in the Middle East.
Bush has become more or less a climate change denier and calls scientists “arrogant” for concluding that man-made global warming is a virtual certainty. No doubt he has long thought them full of themselves over this gravity business and the earth being round, too. His Monday speech implicitly pledged to ramp up carbon emissions by drilling for more oil and gas.
I couldn’t find that he has said anything specific on what his Syria policy would be, but apparently he never met a Middle East intervention he didn’t like.
In the forecast if he wins: war with Iran, troop escalation in Iraq, fawning support of the Israeli Likud Party’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza. The trifecta of bad US policy in the Middle East.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...+the+Headlines
JEB, the "smart brother", is just another extreme right wing conservative neo-con ready invade, bomb, occupy for oil and Israel. The MIC will obviously give JEB $10Ms.
JEB is just another extreme right wing fringe Wall St shill
Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-b...711767951.html
nothing special about the "3rd strike" Bush
Jeb Bush’s pathetic Charleston dodge: “I don’t know” if white supremacist suspect was motivated by racism
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/jeb_...ted_by_racism/
Paul Krugman: Why Jeb-onomics Is Just Voodoo Economics All Over Again
I’ll get to Jeb!onomics in a minute, but first let me tell you about a dirty little secret of economics — namely, that we don’t know very much about how to raise the long-run rate of economic growth.
Economists do know how to promote recovery from temporary slumps, even if politicians usually refuse to take their advice. But once the economy is near full employment, further growth depends on raising output per worker. And while there are things that might help make that happen, the truth is that nobody knows how to conjure up rapid productivity gains.
Why, then, would Mr. Bush imagine that he is privy to secrets that have evaded everyone else?
One answer, which is actually kind of funny, is that he believes that the growth in Florida’s economy during his time as governor offers a role model for the nation as a whole. Why is that funny?
Because everyone except Mr. Bush knows that, during those years, Florida was booming thanks to the mother of all housing bubbles. When the bubble burst, the state plunged into a deep slump, much worse than that in the nation as a whole.
Taking the boom and the slump together, Florida’s longer-term economic performance has, if anything, been slightly worse than the national average.
The key to Mr. Bush’s record of success, then, was good political timing: He managed to leave office before the unsustainable nature of the boom he now invokes became obvious.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/paul...ter1038088&t=5
Jeb's right-wing turn: fight for 'traditional marriage' must continue 'irrespective' of the courts
Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida, said he was not content to let the defense of traditional marriage fade away.“It’s got to be important over the long haul, irrespective of what the courts say,” he said.
In discussing the topic, Mr. Bush made reference to divisive laws enacted in Indiana and other states that would permit some exemptions for people and ins utions who say same-sex marriage violates their religious beliefs. “We need to make sure that we protect the right not just of having religious views, but the right of acting on those religious views,” he said.
He added: “Conscience should also be respected for people of faith who want to take a stand for traditional marriage.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...-of-the-courts
the only War on Heterosexual marriage is in duped, hate-filled, Bible humping Christian brains.
If the SCOTUS5 makes same sex marriage a Federal right, maybe this week, or next, who really thinks same-sex partners are gonna "ram same-sex marriage down the throats" of pastors, and businesses, AND that heterosexual marriage and families will be attacked and destroyed, as the "Christian" grifters propagandize?
White House contenders Trump, Bush in virtual dead heat
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0PL0DA20150711?feedType=RSS&feedName=politi csNews
Trump exposes all y'all Repugs as racist, jingoist, ignorant assholes!
The Repug base is really way-low-down "base"!
Jeb Bush accuses Obama of creating ‘chaos’ in the world by using too many big words
In an interview with the Union Leader, aspiring 2016 Republican presidential nominee Jeb Bush took a slap at the foreign policies of President Barack Obama, stating that the leader of the free world uses too many big words and wastes his time at conferences with world leaders instead of forging ahead.
“This guy — this president and Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry – when someone disagrees with their nuanced approach where it’s all kind of so sophisticated it makes no sense."
"You know what I’m saying?”
Bush continued, “Big syllable words and lots of fancy conferences and meetings and – We’re not leading. That creates chaos. It creates a more dangerous world. So restoring the alliances that have kept the world safer and our country safer – getting back to a position in the Middle East where there’s no light between Israel and the United States.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/jeb-...e+Raw+Story%29
JEB, "the smart brother", pandering to the uneducated, ignorant, grunting, monosyllabic Repug base and to Christian Supremacist Taliban End Timers who plan to visit Israel soon, 40% believe world in already in End Times, when mythical Christ returns.
Don’t Believe GOP Criticism – Donald Trump Speaks For The Party And The BaseWhite House contenders Trump, Bush in virtual dead heat
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...e=politicsNews
Trump exposes all y'all Repugs as racist, jingoist, ignorant assholes!
The Repug base is really way-low-down "base"!
It is true that Donald Trump is an unqualified presidential candidate and a filthy rich, vane, bigoted bloviate. But he is very popular with the Republican base for a simple reason. He, more than any Republican candidate for president, best represents the GOP’s base because unlike the rest of the Republicans seeking the presidential nomination, he is unafraid to speak for the Party and the typical Republican voter. It is why in a recent CNN national poll Trump is in second place among the GOP field, and second in recent polls from Iowa and New Hampshire, both crucial early contests.
Unlike the “professional” politicians, Trump has no overwhelming need to form party alliances or “build a team of party professionals,” so he says precisely what he and the Republican base believes it means to be “real Americans.”
There is more proof Trump is the ideal Republican in a couple of recent surveys, and one particularly telling news story. Republican voters hate Hispanic immigrants as a matter of course whether they are do ented, undo ented, or American citizens. Some Republican presidential candidates did criticize Trump’s xenophobic and bigoted remarks about Mexican immigrants, but their true sentiments were revealed when every potential Republican candidate turned down an invitation from the nation’s largest Latino advocacy group to attend its annual convention next week.
Conservative media is prone to lying profusely, but in the case of Trump’s bigotry, a fair majority of them were truthful in rallying to his defense by claiming Trump was only saying out loud what Republican professional politicians and the base knows needed to be said.
For example, Fox News’ Monica Crowley said Republican voters love Donald Trump because “he’s a straight talker and he’s giving voice to what a lot of voters believe about the state of the country right now. And he’s fearlessly doing it.” According to Crowley, Trump is performing a great service for the rest of the candidates “if they’re smart enough to follow his lead; he is not caving in to the leftist intimidation tactics, and he is doing a lot of political blocking for the other candidates by saying things that need to be said.”Sean Hannity also defended Trump and said, “We’ve got a problem in this country. Floor to ceiling drugs confiscated by people crossing our southern border. You want to talk about crime? Who’s coming from Latin America and Mexico? Are they rich, successful Mexicans, Nicaraguans, El Salvador residents? No!“ A
Fox News radio host, Todd Starnes said “Trump has nothing to apologize for. He was telling the truth, people crossing the border from one country into another was called an invasion. They used to fight wars over stuff like that. But now they just play politics.” Another conservative, John Hinderaker, wrote that “Donald Trump was right. At least he understands why Americans are so angry; the Left’s effort to shut Trump up should be a teachable moment.”
Washed-up rocker, draft dodger, pedophile, and extremely popular National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent thinks that “instead of being condemned and lampooned, Donald Trump should be given the Medal of Freedom for speaking in such a bold, honest, and straight-forward manner. I dare anybody to show me one word from Trump that isn’t accurate. What sort of denial gagged liar denies that our country is being invaded by drug runners, murderers and rapists?”
While establishment Republicans will never admit it openly, conservative media not only speaks for the Party, it speaks for the bigoted base that is not just bigoted against Latinos.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/11/dont-gop-criticism-donald-trump-speaks-party-base.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&ut m_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politicu s+USA+%29
Self-Proclaimed Champion of Veterans Jeb Bush, Supported Switfboating John Kerry
Jeb Bush
✔@JebBush
Enough with the slanderous attacks. @SenJohnMcCain and all our veterans - particularly POWs have earned our respect and admiration.
12:19 PM - 18 Jul 2015
As Atlanta Journal-Cons ution columnist Jay Bookman thenpointedly asked, “Yeah. Just like the respect that John Kerry got in ’04?”
It turns out that in 2005, Jeb thought one veteran in particularshould be attacked. He even thanked other veterans for swiftboating John Kerry, whom Republican conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, who has never served his country, decided to accuse of cowardice in order to keep him out of the White House:Here is a bigger shot at the letter proving Jeb Bush thinks veterans are fair game for slander:
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/...iticus+USA+%29
Jeb Bush Promises to Curb Lobbying and Cut Size of Government
Jeb Bush outlined on Monday a sweeping and detailed plan to rein in the size of the federal government and to curb the influence of the lobbyists who live off it,
calling for a 10 percent reduction in workers,
an immediate hiring freeze,
a cons utional amendment requiring a balanced budget
and a six-year waiting period before members of Congress can become lobbyists.
Mr. Bush said his policies could reduce the size of the federal work force by 10 percent in four years. Much of that, he said, would be accomplished through attrition and a strict system of replacing every three departing federal workers with one new employee.
In a proposal likely to be greeted with deep opposition from federal workers and the unions that represent them, Mr. Bush demanded changes to the Civil Service system that would make it far easier to punish and replace employees.
Mr. Bush wants Congress to introduce a bill that would dock members pay for days when they are absent from work.
“The reality,” he said, “is that Congress is in session for three days in a typical week anyway, so it’s not asking too much that every member be there and work on those days.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/21...ment.html?_r=1
No chance in but JEB, the not-much-smarter brother, continues the hate-govt, hate-govt-unions, hate govt-spending (except for MIC spending and tax expenditures for BigCorp) bull .
Time To Stop Treating Jeb Bush As A Serious Candidate As He Dips to 7 Percent In Iowa Poll
A Monmouth Poll released on Monday July 20, 2015, finds former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is polling just 7 percent with likely Iowa Republican caucus voters. At 7 percent support, Bush is in a distant fourth place, tied with Texas Senator Ted Cruz.
Bush trailsWisconsin Governor Scott Walker (22 percent), wealthy businessman Donald Trump (13 percent) and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (8 percent).
While Bush’s fourth place standing should be concerning enough for his campaign, it may understate how much trouble the former Florida Governor faces ahead in Iowa. Of the 17 Republican candidates polled, Bush is one of only 5 who are viewed unfavorably by Iowa Republicans.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/...iticus+USA+%29
Not that tiny, rural, pig-chicken-stinkin', pig-chicken-polluted IA is significant, but JEB sure seems to be in a hole. He'll probably do better in more populous red states. He's Wall St's choice.
half-brained JEB didn't address a problem as big if not bigger: revolving door between non-elected govt officials and industry jobs.
Warren outhinks JEBBO
"Wall Street insiders have enough influence in Washington already without locking up one powerful job after another in the Executive Branch of our government.
Sure, private sector experience can be valuable – no one ever said otherwise – but there is a point at which the revolving door compromises public interest. And we are way beyond that point."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...r?detail=email
Jeb Bush, pandering to Kochs, calls for an end to Medicare
Here's exactly what he said Wednesday at a New Hampshire event sponsored by the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity:
Actually, that's Jeb! being honest about Republicans' goals and policies.
The left needs to join the conversation, but they haven't. I mean, when [Rep. Paul Ryan] came up with one of his proposals as it relates to Medicare, the first thing I saw was a TV ad of a guy that looked just like Paul Ryan … that was pushing an elderly person off the cliff in a wheelchair. That’s their response.And I think we need to be vigilant about this and persuade people that our, when your volunteers go door to door, and they talk to people, people understand this.
They know, and I think a lot of people recognize that we need to make sure we fulfill the commitment to people that have already received the benefits, that are receiving the benefits.
But that we need to figure out a way to phase out this program for others and move to a new system that allows them to have something—because they’re not going to have anything.
Medicare is hugely popular with those "people" he's talking about that are hearing the Kochs' message on their doorsteps. Only about a quarter of people actually support Ryan's voucher system, the kind of change Jeb! says is necessary.
What's more, he's behind in his news. Thanks in large part to Obamacare, Medicare is on very solid footing. It's going to be around for a long time. A lot longer than Jeb, if he keeps up this kind of talk.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/23/1404989/-Jeb-Bush-pandering-to-Kochs-calls-for-an-end-to-Medicare?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm _campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29 #
The not-very-much-smarter brother is still pretty ing stupid.
Even the "marans" say: "Govt, keep your hands off my Medicare"
and he's just ing stupid
Jeb Bush Says No One Should Apologize For Telling Black Activists That ‘All Lives Matter’
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush dismissed the backlash over “all lives matter” remarks as a politically correct overreaction at a campaign stop in Lancaster, New Hampshire on Thursday.
He was referring to an event at Netroots Nation last weekend, when Black Lives Matter activists disrupted an event with Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley, who said, “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.” He later apologized for the remarks.
Bush said firmly that the former Maryland governor should not have apologized.
“No, for crying out loud, no. We’re so uptight and so politically correct now that we apologize for saying lives matter?” Bush said. “Life is precious. It’s a gift from God. I frankly think that it’s one of the most important values that we have. I know that in the political context it’s a slogan, I guess. Should he have apologized? No.”
The former Florida governor went on to suggest that those who use the phrase “Black Lives Matter” believe that white lives do not.
“If [O’Malley] believes that white lives matter, which I hope he does, then he shouldn’t apologize to a group that seemed to disagree with it,”
http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...-lives-matter/
Jeb Bush ditches openness to budget deal with some tax increases for big spending cuts
Jeb Bush says as president he would not accept any tax increases as part of a deal to slash government spending, going back on what he had to say few years ago.
“No,” Bush flatly told Politico’s Mike Allen during a Sunday forum in California hosted by the Koch bros-funded Freedom Partners. "We've raised taxes. What we need to be doing it en lement reform, curbing the growth of spending, creating a high-growth scenario.
"If you grow at 4 percent for year, I can guarantee you that the revenue that comes to government, instead of the 2 percent growth, in far exceeds any of the exotic taxation ideas that come from DeBlasio or Clinton or any of the most progressives on the planet."
Allen replied that it sounded as if Bush had effectively taken Grover Norquist's no-new-tax pledge. "No," Bush shot back, "I don't sign pledges."
In 2012, Bush had a different perspective.
“If you could bring to me a majority of people to say that we’re going to have $10 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue enhancement -- put me in, coach,” Bush told the House Budget Committee in June of that year. “This will prove I’m not running for anything."
Bush then was commenting on the hard-line approach taken by Republican presidential candidates during a 2011 debate in which they all all said they would reject a deal providing $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue.
Like Marco Rubio earlier in the day, Bush put in a strong performance, providing forceful answers and gaining frequent applause from the big name donors in the room.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-bu...or-big/2239728
Jeb grovelling like a little before the Kock Bros. Kocks are going with their Kockenstein monster Walker for now. Jeb grovelling for Kock's $Ms
Jeb Bush Isn’t Sure If We Should Spend Half A Billion On ‘Women’s Health Issues’
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said at the Southern Baptist Convention on Tuesday that he wasn’t sure if the government should be spending half a billion dollars on “women’s health issues.”
“The next president should defund Planned Parenthood,” he said.
“The argument against this is, well women’s health issues, you’re attacking, it’s a war on women, and you’re attacking women’s health issues.
You could take dollar for dollar, although I’m not sure we need a half a billion dollars for women’s health issues, but if you took dollar for dollar there are many extraordinary fine organizations, community health organizations, that exist to provide quality care for women on wide variety of health issues.
But abortion should not be funded by the government, any government, in my mind.” small as it is, no-so-smart brother!
But what is unclear is whether Bush knows that federal funding for abortion is already prohibited through the Hyde amendment, a policy that’s been in place since the 1970s and that has beendisastrous for low-income women.
Some have argued that defunding Planned Parenthood would actually increase the number of abortions, as the organization provides so many crucial women’s health services to prevent pregnancy.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...st-convention/
yeah, JEB, it really is misogynist Repugs' War on Women, esp poor black, brown women.
Jeb Bush backtracks after questioning whether US ‘needs’ $500 million for womens’ health
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/jeb-...e+Raw+Story%29
The Big Jeb Bush Charter School Lie: Why His Florida Education "Miracle" Is Hogwash
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3...cle-is-hogwash
the not-so-smart brother dubya2 said he knows how to obtain 4% economic growth indefinitely. The longterm avg is 2%.
FL economy grew 4% that JEB claims as his own, but it was all due to the housing/credit bubble, which of course screwed FL very badly in the Banksters Great Depression.
He knew exactly what he was saying... can't blame it on misspeaking.
Jeb! Bush on the run from the fact that he once belonged to organization that does good things
One of the big "gotchas" of last Thursday's Republican debate was directed at Jeb! Bush for having been on the board of the Bloomberg Family Foundation director from March 2010 until he stepped down in late 2014. Jeb! said he was only on the board because it did stuff with education, he didn't know about the Foundation's work with Planned Parenthood, and that he had a solid record of forcing Florida's women to have limited reproductive health choices and to have babies whether they wanted them or not.So here is the work of the Foundation that Jeb! thinks he has to run away from.
Since 2006, the foundation has invested more than $12 million alone in a maternal health program in Tanzania. The additional $50 million Bloomberg announced in 2012 helped to expand the Tanzania project, which provided family planning, as well as post-abortion care, in several health centers. Abortion is largely illegal in Tanzania except to save the life of the mother, according to the Guttmacher Ins ute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.The money also paid for “advocacy grants” to organizations in Nicaragua, Burkina Faso, Senegal and Uganda to improve access to reproductive health services, contraception and family planning information.
Those four countries were jointly selected by Bloomberg’s philanthropy and Planned Parenthood Global, the international division of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
“When women have the power to decide if and when to have children there are fewer unintended pregnancies, fewer maternal deaths, and greater opportunities for women, families and their communities,” Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement in 2014. “To do this, governments need to play a stronger role to ensure that all women have access to the health care they need, no matter who they are, no matter where they live.”
Saving non-American women's lives clearly is not something Jeb! wants to be associated with. Not that Jeb!
"I'm not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues" Bush has such a stellar record on women's health issues here at home, either.
This is the guy who blocked Medicaid funds from paying for women's health services when he was Florida's governor.
This is the guy who used his line-item veto power to axe $2 million in funding for a breast cancer research ins ute AND a measly $30,000 for a cervical cancer tax force.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...28Daily+Kos%29
As has been pointed out, Trump says nasty misogynist ABOUT WOMEN, but the Repug politicians wannabe-Pres have actually DONE misogynist TO WOMEN
Jeb Bush says Hillary Clinton shares blame for Islamic State rise
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...e=politicsNews
not-so-smart-brother, your cretinous sibling is 100% to blame for ISIS.
you still struggling with Iraq, "finding your footing"? EXCELLENT!
Shallow JEB
The former Florida governor was supposed to be the GOP’s next foreign policy statesman. He just proved he’s not.
Most presidential candidates who deliver a “major foreign policy address” have something original, potent, or insightful to say. On Tuesday night, as with most other aspects of his campaign to date, Jeb Bush defied expectations.
His 40-minute speech, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, was a hodgepodge of revisionist history, shallow analysis, and vague prescriptions.
The history—his effort to hide the scar of his own family history—was where he placed most of his chips, and he lost them all.
As a preface, he admitted that “no leader or policymaker” got “everything right” in the Middle East, “Iraq especially” (his single indirect acknowledgment of his brother’s mistakes). But, he added, “one moment stands out in memory as the turning point” of the war in that country—namely, the “surge,” which “turned events toward victory.”
“Why,” he asked, “was the success of the surge followed by a withdrawal from Iraq?” The “fatal error,” he answered, was the “premature withdrawal” ordered by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who “stood by” as our “hard-won victory” was “thrown away” in “a blind haste to get out”—leaving a vacuum that Iran and ISIS filled.
Jeb Bush’s foreign policy speech was a hodgepodge of revisionist history, shallow analysis, and vague prescriptions.
Bush got a crucial fact wrong in this chronicle: His brother’s administration—not Obama’s—signed the status of forces agreement, on Nov. 17, 2008, which stated, in Article 24: “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.”
Article 30 of that same agreement stated that its terms could be amended “only with the official agreement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the cons utional procedures in effect in both countries.” These “cons utional procedures” included a vote by the Iraqi Parliament—and at no time between 2008 and 2011 was the Iraqi Parliament going to take such a vote.
Granted, President Obama did want to get out of Iraq; he won the White House in large part on that promise, and there was no more support in the United States than in Iraq for a continued presence of American troops. And yet Obama did send emissaries—among them former aides to George W. Bush—to seek an amendment to allow a few thousand residual forces. The Iraqi government refused. Unless Obama wanted to re-invade the country, there was nothing to be done.
There was another fallacy in Bush’s description of the surge: Though it was a huge tactical success, it did not pave the way toward “victory.” As its architect, Gen. David Petraeus, said on several occasions, the surge was meant merely to create some “breathing space,” a “zone of security,” so that Iraq’s political factions could form a unified government. The problem was that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki didn’t want unity: He didn’t want to make a deal on power-sharing, oil revenues, or land settlements with Sunni or Kurdish leaders; he wanted to maintain Shiite dominance—and it was Maliki’s stubbornness that revived the sectarian violence and left a lane open for ISIS, whose leaders exploited their fellow Sunnis’ resentments.
Later in Tuesday night’s speech, Bush said that the Iraq surge can serve as a model for how “Islamic moderates can be pulled away from extremist forces” in Syria. I doubt that he was proposing to send 100,000 U.S. troops to Syria, as his brother did in Iraq—an idea that would appeal to almost no American generals or voters. But what he was proposing isn’t at all clear.
Bush also decried Obama’s “limited strikes and other half-measures” against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria. But does this mean that he’s proposing all-out strikes and full measures? As president, he said, he would “take the offensive” and “prevail” against radical Islam. He would embed the current U.S. advisers in Iraq alongside local forces—though here, he added, “We do not need, and our friends do not ask for, a major commitment of American combat forces.” Isn’t this some sort of “half-measure”? Or might embedding troops (essentially turning the advisers into combat forces) escalate our involvement to a full measure, “a major commitment”—the sort of slippery slope that Obama is taking care to avoid, rightly or wrongly. And would Bush escalate the fight if mere embedding didn’t do the job? He didn’t say.
He did say, “In all of this,” referring to the fight against jihadists, “the United States must engage with friends and allies, and lead again in that vital region.” Which friends and allies does he mean? The Saudis try to rope us into a savage, fruitless war against the Houthi rebels, whom it portrays as Iranian proxies. The Turks lend us an air base to step up strikes against ISIS but then use the moment of goodwill as cover to attack their bigger enemy, the Kurds, who rank as the jihadists’ most potent foe (and to whom Bush promised in his speech to send heavy armaments). ISIS derives much of its strength from the deep disunity of its natural foes, some of whom are our allies, some of whom aren’t. “Action, coordination and American leadership,” the solutions Bush calls for, are more complex than he—and many other Republicans who have never held national office—seems to recognize.
He criticized Obama for drawing a “red line” against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons, then failing to follow through. Many of Obama’s defenders have filed the same complaint. But what would Bush do? “Under my strategy,” he said, “the aim would be to draw the [Syrian] moderates together and back them up as one force … not just in taking the fight to the enemy but in helping them to form a stable moderate government once ISIS is defeated and Assad is gone.” How would he do this? By replicating his brother’s surge in Iraq.
After all, he added with blithe confidence, “the strategic elements in both cases [Iraq circa 2007 and Syria today] are the same”—thus demonstrating that he and his speechwriters haveno understanding of the tangled politics in Syria or of what made the Iraqi surge work to the extent that it did.
As a first step to boosting American influence, Bush said he would reverse the “significant dismantling of our own military” ??? of the past seven years, ignoring that defense spending has been on the rise and that the current budget, amounting to $620 billion, is larger than at any time since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. One could argue for some sort of rejiggering in defense spending, but Bush didn’t do that.
Finally, Bush made a strong showing in the compe ion to see which Republican candidate can most pummel Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
Like the others, he promised to undo the deal “immediately” upon taking office—ignoring that five other nations also signed the deal and are unlikely to follow such a lead. He mischaracterized the accord in a number of ways.
He lambasted “the Obama-Clinton-Kerry policy of treating the mullahs in Iran as a stabilizing force” (there is no such policy),
complained that the deal says nothing about Iran’s support for terrorism (true, but a generation of Soviet-American arms-control treaties, including some signed by the hero of this speech, Ronald Reagan, said nothing about the ravages of Communism), and
scoffed that “least of all does it prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability” (when, in fact, it does and, despite another common claim, for more than 10 years).
Throughout the speech, Bush spoke of restoring trust in American leadership. But what he proposed doing in his first days as president—scuttling a deal that the nation’s top diplomats and scientists negotiated alongside five great powers of Europe and Asia, and that the U.N. Security Council then unanimously endorsed—would shatter that trust and diminish that leadership.
When Jeb Bush entered the race, pundits and politicians proclaimed him the front-runner. At the moment, the most encouraging poll puts him barely into double digits, drawing half as much support as “Undecided.” A poll out Tuesday night has him in seventh place in Iowa, luring just 5 percent of those surveyed. Of course, all this could change, especially after—or if—Donald Trump flames out. Meanwhile, if Bush hopes to get a boost from his ideas in foreign policy, this speech isn’t likely to do the trick.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._s_speech.html
Listening to not-so-smart-brother's simplistic vocab, simplistic sentences, weird delivery, and generally stupid "ideas", I think he's just a ignorant, dumb, uneducated, incurious as dubya.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
