Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 01, 2015, 11:12:14 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
87839 Posts in 2282 Topics by 1070 Members
Latest Member: Nexquietus
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Gov. Jeb Bush
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Gov. Jeb Bush  (Read 1451 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« on: January 07, 2015, 09:48:27 AM »

For obvious reasons Jeb gets his own thread.

I know we here have strong doubts about him (amnesty, common core) but I have read in more than one place that he has a very good record as Gov. of FL.  I saw the front page of his website on the news this morning and I must say I very much liked the bullet points he chose, things like Freedom, Free Enterprise, Strong National Defense, and more.

« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 02:27:45 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12675


« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2015, 11:04:03 AM »

Illegal immigration is an "act of love".

Enough of the rinos.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2015, 11:28:19 AM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/jeb-hillary-codependent-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12675


« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2015, 11:38:43 AM »

I'm pretty sure we fought a war or two so as to avoid hereditary rulers.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6662


« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2015, 04:55:26 PM »

"I know we here have strong doubts about him (amnesty, common core)"

  - Yes, those are the two.  I would think he could back off of common core rather easily.  He was trying to raise educational standards in an initiative coming out of the states.  It turned into an escalation of liberal leftist, central federal government totalitarian control over schools.  Schools should be controlled locally.  Just say so.  How he finesses amnesty support into a Republican nomination will be more difficult and he seems to be immovable.  There are two sides to it.  Jeb is only showing that he gets the compassion for the illegals side of it and not the rest like laws, security and sovereignty.  Good for him (sarc.), but then he is running for the wrong endorsement.  The candidate who wins will have to acknowledge both sides of it and strike the right balance.

"I'm pretty sure we fought a war or two so as to avoid hereditary rulers."

  - No problem, they will just both go by their first names, like my neighbor Prince Nelson.

"I have read in more than one place that he has a very good record as Gov. of FL."
"Enough of the rinos."

   - His record during two terms in Florida is more conservative than Ronald Reagan's record serving two terms in California.

They said a long time ago that he was the best of the Bush's.  If so, then why did we have to suffer through the rudderless father and somewhat confused older brother first?

I am planning to support new blood first.  This also could turn into a head fake.  Like Hillary, he may find out this is not what he wants.  But right now, he is the Republican front runner.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12675


« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2015, 06:12:09 PM »

I am so sick of the republican structure pushing democrat-lite candidates. I will not vote for them again. I will worry about local issues and ignore the national goat rope.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2015, 05:08:13 PM »

Jeb's Real Opponent In 2016 Is Bush 43
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on February 20, 2015
In his efforts to break free of the legacy of the Bush 43 presidency, Jeb reminds one of  Michelangelo's slave statues struggling against their stone fetters. Try as they might, they remain bound to the stone from whence they came.

Whatever one thinks of W's tenure as president, let's all remember that he left office with a Gallup score of 34 percent, having touched 25 percent in October/November of 2008 -- right around Election Day.

His last term ended in disaster. The financial collapse, the looming recession, and the residual negatives of the body bags that came home from Iraq seared into the public consciousness and made him one of our least popular presidents. His low point rating by Gallup of 25 percent is the lowest of all post-war presidents except for Nixon's, at 24 percent, and Truman's, 22 percent.

That is quite a legacy to live down.

And Jeb must live it down, explicitly. It is not enough to obliquely note, as he did in his speech this week, that "mistakes were made" in Iraq. He has to lay it out and put the blame where it belongs -- on the commander in chief.

But at least Iraq ended well as Bush left office -- only to be mangled beyond recognition by Obama's total withdrawal. The end-term legacy of Bush 43 is dominated by the second most harrowing financial crisis in our national history.

Was it Bush's fault? Damn right it was. He had been president for eight years. He had appointed the head of the Federal Reserve. It was his policy to maintain only the most minimal -- and distracted -- regulation of Wall Street. While he did make feeble attempts to rein in Fannie and Freddie, their mismanagement took place on his watch.

Understandably, voters would not rate highly his stewardship of the economy.

Jeb must get out of that shadow. The only way he can do so is to explain, in detail, what he felt his brother did wrong and to lay out how he would do better. Otherwise, his candidacy would be like Herbert Hoover's brother running in 1940, eight years after Herbert left office.

Hillary would have only to compare Bill's economic record with W's and the results would not be pretty.

To be sure, it was Bill Clinton's signature on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, his approval of the deregulation of derivatives, and his go-go instructions to Fannie and Freddie that laid the basis for the crash. But all that is for the cognoscenti. To the average voter, Bush equals recession -- in 1991 and in 2007-08.

If Jeb is sparing in his critique and fails to meet the concerns of voters head-on, he will pay the price and hand the election over to Hillary.

We must not blame Jeb for W's failures. But if he does not recognize, admit, and enumerate them -- and suggest how he would proceed differently -- we are entitled to hold them against him.

We had better. The voters will.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2015, 12:21:32 PM »



http://www.dickmorris.com/jebs-biggest-problem-w-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2015, 09:40:32 AM »

Sean Hannity (yeah, yeah, I know) had an extended interview with Jeb Bush last night at the CPAC in front of a large crowd.

I must say Bush was quite good, and , , , presidential. 

Decide for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7edfSVLhA_8

HUGE problems remain with his candidacy of course (e.g. Distinguishing his calls for strength in foreign affairs from his brother's waging of the Iraq War) but I gotta say the man offers a lot too.  His record as governor gives him a gravitas that one term Senators like Rubio ( (Rubio, whom I like a lot, also was interviewed, but frankly was nowhere near as impressive.)  and Rand Paul, neither of whom have noticeable executive or business experience.  He answered the questions directly and without flinching, with vigor, and calls to economic growth for all. 

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4572


« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2015, 08:24:28 PM »

"He answered the questions directly and without flinching, with vigor, and calls to economic growth for all. "

Too bad he is a believer in big government.   He is absolutely ridiculous with the immigration thing.  What a sell out.   No other way to call it. 

But yes he has some positives.   The Bushes are great Americans but I hope we can get someone who is not an appeaser.   He is.   

Remember his father:   "voodoo economics".   Yet Jeb claims he is for tax cuts to spur the economy even with the astronomical debt load.   I just don't believe he means it.

 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2015, 11:39:51 PM »

I could live with a compromise that AFTER THE BORDERS ARE CONTROLLED allowed those who were brought here very young and for all intents and purposes are Americans, to achieve some sort of legalized status.   I also note that he speaks of the very important point about narrowly limiting the definition of "family" that can be brought in from what it is now.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4572


« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2015, 08:53:04 AM »

Kind of bizarre that Drudge reports Bush had "supporters" bused in to CPAC from DC.   One can wonder if all these "supporters" were people who had jobs with a Bush at some point and are vying for jobs with this Bush now.  

I was wondering why he got significant (though not huge) audience applause at times during the actually very good interview by Sean Hannity.  

Crafty, thanks for your always logical and reasoned thoughts.  Let me explain why I am against J.  Not because I don't like him.  He and is family are wonderful people, very smart, appear to be very honest, and are doing their best and what they think is right throughout their public service.   Yet they are inadequate to confront the "transformation" the liberals are doing to the United States, and actually the world.  Obama is just the "front man".

Let me explain:

"I could live with a compromise that AFTER THE BORDERS ARE CONTROLLED"

I used to think this way too.   I recall Doug once calling me a rhino some years ago.   He was probably right.   Then I learned.   The problem with compromise it is only a temporary rear guard action the delays but never rolls back the progressive onslaught.   It won't stop till the concept of country, sovereignty, borders, and real free will is gone.
One world nation under the new God, which will be ONE world GOVERNMENT with total control over every aspect of humanity on this planet.  Oh, they will say representatives are elected and it is some sort of Democracy but can anyone not imagine the totalistic control government and their favorite companies and people will have over all of us.  There already is quite a bit of that now particularly with this tyrant in the WH but just imagine what it will be like then.  Listening to that NYU professor (Jeffrey Sachs)  give his talk at my nephews graduation awakened me up to this goal of the liberal elite.  Ironically I was the only one of my clan there who even realized what he was saying.   My nephew who now works with Bobby Jindal thought the speech was not political!  Wow.  This is important to me when I think of the prospect of another Bush.   A  Bush will not turn back this onslaught to any real measure.   Yeah they may put in a few fingers to plug up  the leaks in the dam but will not really rebuild the dam and the water it holds.  

J Bush will govern the same way his brothers did.   Compromise and appease.   Remember who followed both his immediate family members in the WH!   If there was something great (like Reagan) about them this would not have happened.  Indeed, Reagan got H swept in only for him to squander the conservative wave to Clinton.  And that was after he earned a short lived 90+ approval ratings from the successful the invasion of Iraq and liberation of Kuwait.  

It is early.  I am not ruling J out.  Just very skeptical and leery.  He is going to have to put more than his words out there for me.
One more thing.  I don't like his calling himself a "grownup" whenever he implies the conservative Tea Party types are not.   What an insult.  We have a reason to be angry.   We have reasons to want to really put our feet down.  We have a reason to want to fight.  "Conversations" are not enough to fight back the left.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 10:59:39 AM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2015, 10:33:36 AM »

I agree with most of that too smiley  I guess I am just saying not to put our fingers in our ears just yet with Bush. 

I fully recognize that there are some serious potential weak links in his candidacy:

1) A natural and proper revulsion to monarchy/nepotism and the general revulsion to the idea of a First Lady running against the son and brother of previous presidents. 

2) As we call for a return to a strong foreign policy, we are going to be accused of wanting to redo what did not work in Iraq under Bush 2, and Jeb, an honorable man, will have a hard time criticizing him and distinguishing himself from his brother.   Remember too, Rand Paul will be resonating with many people with many of his criticisms.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4572


« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2015, 11:01:39 AM »

"As we call for a return to a strong foreign policy, we are going to be accused of wanting to redo what did not work in Iraq under Bush 2, and Jeb, an honorable man, will have a hard time criticizing him and distinguishing himself from his brother"

Yes indeed.   
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6662


« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2015, 06:53:34 AM »

"He answered the questions directly "

Yes and no.   I agree he comes across ready, well informed and in control in the interview, hitting the right chords the best he can in front of the CPAC audience.  But when aiming at different audiences he has been leading with the issues that trouble conservatives most.

I found this comment regarding the current funding battle over unconstitutional executive orders on amnesty bothersome.  
Jeb said:  "It doesn't make sense to me that we're not funding control of our border which is the whole argument."

WHO is not funding WHAT??  He implies Republicans are about to not fund border security.  In fact, it is Dems not funding it and even if it fails, shutdowns only involve non-essential department employees, not border security.

I agree that serving two successful terms as governor of a major state is a good qualification.  I agree he sounds the right chords on economics, his Right to Rise is the same theme as Rubio who is trying to restore the American Dream.  I agree he is the sharpest and most conservative of the 3 Bushes we know. (Low bar?)  But I also agree with the criticisms.  He has a trust problem on immigration.  Why do we think he will be tough suddenly on border security where no one else including his own brother has.  Education has been taken over federally, by all the wrong people.  Common Core advocates draws a distinction that it is standards not curriculum, but it has become curriculum in fact if not in law.  It is an issue he should have dropped if he intended to move from state to federal level.  If education is his number one passion, federal government is not the place for him to advance it IMHO.

Jeb is not the candidate to unite the right.  People on the right don't trust him and people in the center who follow things less closely will mostly see him as another Bush.  That isn't easy to shake.  

If nominated, he will be the third candidate in a row who needs to reach back to the right in the general election when he should be courting the middle.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 08:05:06 AM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6662


« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2015, 07:53:10 AM »

"I could live with a compromise that AFTER THE BORDERS ARE CONTROLLED"

I used to think this way too.   I recall Doug once calling me a rhino some years ago.   He was probably right.   Then I learned.   The problem with compromise it is only a temporary rear guard action the delays but never rolls back the progressive onslaught.   It won't stop till the concept of country, sovereignty, borders, and real free will is gone.


ccp: Hopefully I described you as a former moderate, not RINO in that you avoid taking on the Republican name.

Both Jeb and Rubio are more pro-legal-immigration than the views you've expressed here.  Others including myself are perhaps more pro-immigration, but only supporting the legal variety.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2015, 10:37:21 AM »

Intelligent observations, and I don't disagree.

I guess what I was trying to say in this moment that there is plenty of substance to Bush as well.   NONE of the candidates has the well-rounded background and positions that I would hope for in a presidential candidate.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6662


« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2015, 12:30:41 PM »

Agree, there is plenty of substance to Jeb.  CPAC was mostly about conservatism.  The question will gradually shift to electability and Jeb may win the nomination with that argument.

He answered the Common Core question strongly.  There is nothing he can do about his last name.  It comes down to the immigration question and primary and general election voters will have to make a judgment about that.  There is border security and there is rule of law.  If we give away too much to those who already came in, more will come.  Also, there is the political conundrum.  People tend to vote for the policies they are fleeing.  If it is to be 11 million people it will be 3 or 4 times that many, and if Republicans welcome them they will presumably vote majority Democrat anyway, guaranteeing Obama-like governance until the system collapses.  If we ignore rule of law and don't deport (status quo),  then there is an underclass living among us without consent of the governed and Dems keep the issue alive forever.  (The middle ground is probably the position Rubio takes now.  Border security must be proven over a period of time before further negotiations can proceed.)

Wm F Buckley said something like this, choose the most conservative candidate who can win.  I would say it the other way around, choose the most electable of the candidates whose positions and experience we find to be right or acceptable.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 01:01:52 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2015, 02:33:42 PM »

Hat tip to CCP for this one, this bears watching:
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/20/levin-criticizes-jebs-association-with-israel-hater-advisor/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6662


« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2015, 10:04:02 AM »

This interview drew more attention for the Indiana and religious freedom aspects, but he was quite clear and tough on his approach to Iran - and Russia.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/jeb-bush-on-the-indiana-law-iran-and-hillary/

Hugh Hewitt: It was announced over the weekend by their foreign minister, deputy foreign minister, they’re not going to send their enriched uranium to Russia. We didn’t get up and leave at that point. What has gone wrong here? And what do you think of these negotiations?

Jeb Bush: I think they should have stopped a long time ago. If the purpose of the negotiations established by President Obama at the beginning, and by the way, by his predecessors of not allowing Iran to enrich uranium to be able to build a bomb, if that was the purpose, fine. But now, we’ve negotiated downward to the point where we’re now talking about breakouts, we’re talking about vague assurances of verification. We’re talking about allowing them to enrich uranium inside, and store it inside their own country. There are places that, facilities that don’t have the same, they’re not open places that this is all taking place, fortified so as to protect themselves from attack. I think this is wrong. All the while, and this is the part that’s most amazing to me, all the while that the Iranian government, through its resources and its surrogates, is destabilizing the region. They have influence or control over four capitals while we’re negotiating with them. This is the part that’s most troubling, is that the President and his administration seems to be more interested in cutting a deal with Iran, who has marches calling for the death of the United States, or the annihilation of Israel, and treats friends in the region, particularly Israel, with incredible disrespect.

HH: Now General Soleimani is said to have been in Tikrit last week and Yemen this week in support of the Houthis. They’re all Shiia-aligned, Iranian-aligned militias. If you’re the president, what’s the line you’ll draw with Iran about projecting force outside of their country’s border?

JB: I think we have to tighten up the sanctions, if possible. This is, the danger of this agreement is what I described and much more, but it also is the loosening of the sanctions very fast, in which case it would be very hard to put the genie back into the bottle. The one leverage point we have over Iran is tightening sanctions rather than loosening them. And if we were in that position, I think we could get a better deal that would contain Iran’s interest in destabilizing the area. In the interim, we also have ISIS. You know, our disengagement has created this dual threat that is, the one solution, I think, that is clear to me, at least, is that we need to rebuild our relationships with the traditional Arab nations, for them to have confidence that we’ve got their back. We’re providing some intelligence support apparently in Yemen, but when we pulled back, these voids are being created, and they’re being filled by people that want to create great instability and harm to the United States, and to those that believe in freedom.
...
Regarding Putin and threats from Russia:
HH: Should we lean forward on Article 5 with the Baltic states?

JB: Yeah, absolutely. And the President has done a small amount of that, but I think there needs to be clarity in Moscow that we’re serious about protecting the one alliance that has creates enormous amounts of security and peace in the post-World War II time.
HH: Are you, Jeb Bush, saying that if Putin makes a play on the Russian population areas of the Baltics, that that’s an occasion for war in Europe?

JB: What I’m saying is that if we’re not serious about Article 5, then we ought to have shut down NATO. And I think shutting down NATO would be a disaster. The Baltic states are counting on the United States to be a leader in this regard, and it’s not just the Baltics. It’s also Poland, it’s Eastern Europe, it’s a lot of countries. The Baltics are the most vulnerable, because they, as you point out, there’s high percentages anywhere, what, 25-40% of the population are Russian speaking. But sure, the new threats aren’t necessarily invasions. It can be creating a cyberattack and then creating, taking off the emblems and coming in and destabilizing countries as has just occurred in Europe.

HH: We’ve got about a minute to the break. Should we have done more for Ukraine? Should we do more for the Ukrainians right now?

JB: I think we should. I think we should provide defensive support for Ukraine, and we need to get the Europeans back in the game as well.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2015, 10:16:44 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2015, 09:55:41 AM »

Three months into what allies once confidently described as a “shock and awe” drive to overcome his rivals and dominate the Republican presidential field, Jeb Bush’s early campaigning looks like the juggernaut that wasn’t.

He is grappling with the Republican Party’s prickly and demanding ideological blocs, particularly evangelical leaders and pro-Israel hawks. He is struggling to win over grass-roots activists in Iowa and New Hampshire, states he has visited only a handful of times. And Mr. Bush’s undisputed advantage — the millions of dollars streaming rapidly into his political organization — may not be enough to knock out other contenders.

For all the Republican “bundlers” who have signed up to raise money for Mr. Bush, others remain uncommitted or are hedging their bets by aiding more than one candidate. Some are privately chafing at what they view as the Bush camp’s presumption of their loyalty.


Other wealthy donors, mindful of their power to reshape the Republican race with “super PAC” donations, have been more direct: The casino magnate Sheldon Adelson recently made what two people briefed on it described as an “animated” call to one of Mr. Bush’s top supporters after former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a Bush adviser, criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in a speech in March.

It is a far cry, party officials, activists and donors said, from the early success of George W. Bush, Mr. Bush’s brother, in securing the 2000 Republican presidential nomination.

For the Bush family, inevitability is not what it used to be. “There hasn’t been a coalescing around him like there was for his brother in 1998 and 1999,” said Ed Martin, who led the Missouri Republican Party until February and is now president of the Eagle Forum, the conservative group founded by Phyllis Schlafly. “I just don’t have a sense among big donors and Republican leaders that this is Jeb’s to lose.”

Aides have assured worried supporters that Mr. Bush, a former Florida governor, will spend more time on the stump, honing his message, cultivating grass-roots enthusiasm and winning over local leaders and ordinary Republican voters.

Fred Zeidman, a prominent bundler, said Mr. Bush had attracted an enormous number of supporters outside the family network. “You’re not seeing either of the old Bush teams running this campaign,” he said, “and I think it’s proof positive that people feel very strongly.”

But even among business leaders who see Mr. Bush as an attractive candidate, some have wondered about the series of major policy speeches his team promised, which he has been slow to deliver.

“The smart money is taking it slower and waiting to see who runs and how these candidates develop a platform,” said Scott Reed, the top political adviser to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Raising money is an important part of the game. But it’s not the whole game.”

The first primary votes are still nearly 10 months away, giving Mr. Bush’s team plenty of time to adjust, and Republicans show no sign of unifying behind another candidate. Mr. Bush’s advisers say he never believed he would be able to clear the field. And they say his refusal to bend to the demands of people whose views he does not share demonstrates that he is running a different type of race.
Continue reading the main story

“As Governor Bush considers the possibility of a run, he’s working hard to earn the support of people throughout the party and deliver a positive message about how conservative reforms can restore opportunity and prosperity for more Americans,” Kristy Campbell, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush, said in an email.

In January, Mr. Bush’s allies started using the phrase “shock and awe” to describe his plan to lock up as many of the party’s major donors and policy experts as possible. The intent was to make him the sole credible contender for the blessing of the Republican establishment. Mr. Bush was successful in driving the 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, from trying another campaign. And few doubt that he leads in fund-raising, though his organization will not have to disclose its finances until July.

But while Mr. Bush continues to position himself as Republicans’ best hope in the general election, recent polls show him performing no better against Hillary Rodham Clinton than Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin or Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. And he is well behind Mr. Walker in Iowa, which has made a habit of rejecting candidates seen as their party’s inevitable nominees.

“If he’s going to run for the presidency because his father and his brother were president, is that why we should support him?” asked Colleen Platt, a City Council member in University Park, Iowa.

There is also lingering suspicion of Mr. Bush among the Tea Party grass roots, which arose while Mr. Bush was focused on business and philanthropic interests.

Ovide Lamontagne, the Tea Party candidate in the 2010 Republican primary for the Senate in New Hampshire, suggested that Mr. Bush had not reached out sufficiently to conservatives there. “A good number of candidates” have approached him, he said, but Mr. Bush has not.

Many big fund-raisers continue to shop around. Paul Singer, one of Wall Street’s most sought-after Republican donors, is holding a series of dinners to introduce his associates to various candidates.

And John A. Catsimatidis, a New York Republican, contributed $50,000 to a super PAC backing Mr. Bush and recently gave him a ride to Florida on his plane — but has also contributed to Mr. Walker’s political organization.

Several donors said it was too early to line up behind one candidate, or hinted that Mr. Bush should not take their support for granted.

“I don’t subscribe to ‘shock and awe,’ ” said John Rakolta Jr., a Michigan construction executive and former top fund-raiser for Mr. Romney. “I don’t think it’s a constructive strategy.”

Mr. Bush’s intense focus on fund-raising has left him to contend with a donor class far more restive than in his brother’s day, before the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and other court rulings amplified the power of wealthy contributors.

For example, Mr. Bush must navigate between the party base, which remains strongly opposed to same-sex marriage, and elite donors who have tried to steer the party to support it or leave the issue aside altogether.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

In California last week, Mr. Bush told donors that he approved of a decision by Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana to seek changes to a new law billed as protecting religious freedom — just two days after Mr. Bush had firmly defended it on a conservative radio show.

Jewish donors also remain angry at Mr. Bush for a March 23 speech that Mr. Baker, who was secretary of state under Mr. Bush’s father, delivered to J Street, a liberal pro-Israel group. Mr. Adelson, perhaps the single largest Republican donor, quickly complained to Mel Sembler, a Florida developer who has long supported Mr. Bush. And Mr. Bush was pressed again about Mr. Baker’s speech at another California event last week.

In defending himself, Mr. Bush, who has described himself as “my own man” on foreign policy, pointed out that his brother had a strong record of support for Israel, one attendee said.

Mr. Sembler declined to discuss his call with Mr. Adelson, but maintained that most of the party’s big donors were moving to Mr. Bush. He acknowledged, though, that “a few” were saying they would “hold off and see who else is really going to get in.”

Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor and 2012 Republican presidential candidate, suggested that Mr. Bush’s candidacy was like a car built to endure the occasional speed bump. He predicted that Mr. Bush would begin to speak more loudly and clearly, and to define himself less by his surname.

“He’s going to have to stake out his claim here,” Mr. Pawlenty said. “And the sooner the better.”
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6662


« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2015, 12:56:51 PM »

Unlike Hillary, none of the R's including Bush start with a presumed coronation.  Jeb has the same challenge to set himself apart that all the other Republicans have.  Even among those who follow this closely, we barely know him.

One other Jeb quote from the interview I posted this week.  Regarding how his Catholic faith would guide his governing, this is encouraging:

"I’m going to get my economic policy from Milton Friedman and others like that, not from the Pope."

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2015, 02:27:29 PM »

By
Patrick O’Connor And
Beth Reinhard
April 9, 2015 2:51 p.m. ET
0 COMMENTS

The day after Jeb Bush signed landmark “stand your ground” legislation, one Florida resident emailed the then-governor to thank him “for allowing us to defend ourselves.”

“You are most welcome,” Mr. Bush replied.

The former Florida governor is confronting a conservative backlash for his positions on education and immigration. This week, he’ll turn to an issue on which he garners much higher marks from the right: guns.

Key to his appeal is the 2005 decision to sign a bill, among the most sweeping of its kind, that expanded protections for Floridians who use deadly force against home intruders or people who attack them in their cars, workplace or even on the street. The law has since become a touchstone in a broader debate about the use of deadly force, following the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teen.
Read More on Capital Journal

    Why Rand Paul Is Unwelcome at NRA Gun Rights Convention
    Ex-Rhode Island Gov. Chafee Plans to Run for President
    Early Poll: Hillary Clinton Would Face Tight Races in Iowa, Colorado

Against that backdrop, Mr. Bush and nearly a dozen other potential Republican White House hopefuls will tout their support for gun rights Friday at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Nashville, Tenn.

The three-day event, which draws thousands of gun enthusiasts each year, will be a fresh opportunity for Mr. Bush to win over conservative activists who have been cool to his likely White House bid. His speech Friday is a venue to promote his conservative record as Florida governor.

Not attending is Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky because of a scheduling conflict. Top NRA officials are also unhappy Mr. Paul has for years lent his name to the National Association for Gun Rights, a group that fashions itself a more conservative alternative to NRA.

During his eight-year stretch as governor, Mr. Bush signed numerous bills extending new rights to gun owners, including those to expand protections for people permitted to carry concealed firearms. As a result, more than a million Floridians have permits to carry concealed weapons. He also approved a measure allowing Florida to extend its protections to residents of other states who visit the Sunshine State.

“He’s probably more conservative on guns than anybody in that race,” said Bill Bunting, a prominent gun-rights activist and a GOP committeeman with the state party. “He’s got a perfect track record.”

Most Republicans eying presidential bids are strong supporters of gun rights. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who is expected to launch his campaign Monday, voted for the state’s stand-your-ground law in 2005 as a member of the state House.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a version of the law in 2007, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has made his support for similar legislation a staple of his early stump speech. Mr. Paul, who just announced his bid, has advocated allowing teachers and principals to possess guns to prevent school shootings like the one that occurred in 2012 in the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

In the months before Mr. Bush signed Florida’s stand-your-ground law, he traded emails with the leading NRA lobbyist in the state, Marion Hammer. In one exchange, Ms. Hammer assured the governor the state Legislature would be the first in the country to pass a sweeping bill that included provisions protecting gun owners in their homes and from civil liability. “We’re the first to do the whole package,” she wrote.

In the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin shooting, Mr. Bush said the law shouldn’t have applied in those circumstances, in which the teen was shot by a self-appointed local neighborhood watchman. Mr. Bush also expressed sympathy for the victim’s family, telling reporters that “anytime an innocent life is taken, it’s a tragedy,” and he questioned the pace of the investigation.

But Mr. Bush didn’t waver in his support for the underlying legislation. “Applied properly, I support the law,” Mr. Bush said shortly after the incident.

At the time the bill passed, critics argued it would result in the death of innocent, unarmed people.

Mr. Bush “was aware of the possible ramifications,” said Democratic state Sen. Chris Smith, a vocal critic when he was still in the state House. “We brought up Trayvon Martin situations in those debates.”

Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said the governor “signed the ‘stand your ground’ law in an effort to protect individuals who felt in danger of imminent peril, great bodily harm or death.”

In private, Mr. Bush acknowledged the concerns. Days before he signed the law, a Parkland, Fla., resident emailed to say, “From what I understand about this bill it would put a lot of young BLACK men in harm’s way.”

The governor forwarded her note to his staff, and asked: “what is this about?”

When his aide explained the bill was the stand-your-ground measure advocated by Ms. Hammer, Mr. Bush replied: “We will need a response to this and to the others that will come.”

« Last Edit: April 10, 2015, 04:54:04 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6662


« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2015, 01:11:36 PM »

Gun rights, second amendment and stand your ground law is another area where Jeb is consistent with conservative, constitutional principles.

It keeps coming back to immigration. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2015, 08:55:56 AM »

Well, the question we all knew was coming has been asked, and he has answered.  It will be very interesting to see how the opponents and the polls respond,

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/05/10/jeb-bush-says-he-would-have-invaded-iraq-like-his-brother-did-video/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12675


« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2015, 10:34:57 AM »

Aside from his campaign personnel, there is no interest in Jeb as president.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #26 on: June 10, 2015, 01:21:56 AM »

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/jeb-bush-in-95-single-mothers-should-be-publicly-shamed-for-giving-birth-outside-of-marriage/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #27 on: June 16, 2015, 09:33:37 AM »



Jeb Bush formally launched his presidential campaign on Monday, and no candidate needed it more. The former Florida Governor’s non-campaign so far has been curiously defensive, but now he has a new opening to make the case for why he can beat Hillary Clinton and be a worthy President.

Mr. Bush’s drawn-out pre-campaign allowed him to help his Super PAC raise money, and fundraising has been his biggest success to date. Money is an important measure of support, especially in a GOP field that is larger and more formidable than any in memory. Mr. Bush’s cash hoard will give him staying power to make it to the Florida primary or the later regional contests in an extended race.

But Mr. Bush’s long launch fuse has also made his candidacy seem more hesitant than dynamic, more biographical than about leading a larger cause. He has spent more time answering questions about his family name, and his brother’s foreign policy, than he has laying out his own campaign principles.

The focus on biography is especially harmful because many Republicans are instinctively averse to nominating the third Bush in 30 years. This does not mean Jeb should take the media bait of trying to explain how he is different than either his brother or his father. It does require offering a vision and agenda that are bold enough to set the terms of the debate, and then show that he can sell them.

The latter is important as a contrast with his brother, who had a difficult time making the case for conservative ideas. George W. was a back-slapper in a way Jeb is not, but Jeb understands policy in a way that George W. and their father George H.W. rarely made clear. Conservatives haven’t had a great political communicator since Reagan. Voters will make their own judgments about whether Jeb is a different, better brand of Bush.

In his announcement speech, Mr. Bush rightly made his primary goal to lift the country out of its Obama-era economic lethargy. “We will take Washington—the static capital of this dynamic country—out of the business of causing problems,” he said.

He set a target of returning to 4% annual growth in GDP, which may sound like a stretch after the Obama era of close to 2%. But the country had a run of 4%-plus growth in both the 1980s and 1990s, and Mr. Bush said so did Florida when he was Governor.

The 62-year-old made much of his Florida record, also with good cause. Along with former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Mr. Bush is arguably the most successful state executive of the last 20 years.

“Bush made Florida into a laboratory of conservative governance,” writes Matthew Corrigan, a professor who is no conservative but whose book “Conservative Hurricane: How Jeb Bush Remade Florida” is the definitive rebuttal to those who portray him as a moderate. It is also a way to contrast his experience with the Senate candidates who’ve never run anything.

In two terms Mr. Bush left his fast-growing state’s government relatively smaller and its tax burden lower. He reformed tort laws and eliminated racial preferences.

He was in particular a pioneer in education reform, especially school choice and despite a hostile state supreme court that ruled that school vouchers violated the state constitution’s Blaine Amendment, an anti-Catholic remnant of the 19th century.

Mr. Bush worked around the court with the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship that lets donors deduct from their tax bills contributions to school scholarships for private or public schools. It has since grown into one of the largest voucher programs in the country, and it has become a model for other states, most recently Nevada.

Another Bush asset is his proven ability to attract non-Republican voters. He stepped down as Governor with a nearly 60% approval rating in a state that Barack Obama carried twice and Bill Clinton once. Republicans can’t retake the White House without Florida and other swing states like Colorado and Virginia with growing minority populations.
***

In 2016 the biggest divide in the GOP field isn’t between conservatives and moderates. The most important contrast concerns political strategy and pits the dividers against the uniters. Mr. Bush, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and perhaps Ohio Governor John Kasich think the GOP has to expand its appeal with an inclusive message of growth, upward mobility and a softer edge on the culture. Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum believe the path to the nomination and victory in 2016 is to polarize the national debate around immigration and cultural issues.

The polarizing strategy was plausible when the GOP could claim a presidential majority. But Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six elections, and demography is moving their way. That is why Mrs. Clinton is so eager to run as an Elizabeth Warren-Barack Obama polarizer. Conservatives will do better if they seek to expand the GOP and make a case for unifying the country.

Mr. Bush’s candidacy enlivens this GOP debate and adds to the list of candidates who would give the coronated Mrs. Clinton a run for the Clinton Foundation’s money.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6662


« Reply #28 on: June 16, 2015, 10:55:10 AM »

Other than the problems we have previously noted here about Gov. Bush, he would be one of the best candidates in the race.

This piece below predicts a Jeb victory.  I don't agree.  I'm pulling for a less experienced underdog, but the points made are mostly valid.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/five-reasons-jeb-bush-will-be-the-next-president/article/2566237

Five reasons Jeb Bush will be the next president

1. Bush is seeking to grow the Republican Party.

Rather than trying to expand his support among conservative voters, Bush is trying to make inroads with moderate, swing voters. For example, when I've heard Bush talk about his education reforms in Florida, he doesn't just give conservative talking points about expanding families' freedom to choose the school that's best for them. He explains how successful the reforms have been in making Florida's Hispanic, black and low-income students outscore students in other states.

Bush is a true Big Tent Republican. He generally doesn't attack other Republicans, and when he attacks Democrats, he generally avoids the outraged tone that other GOP candidates employ. This will be an attractive feature to the growing share of voters who are fed up with the politics of perpetual outrage. Conservative voters likely won't like his moderate approach to immigration or his support for Common Core. But Bush isn't flip-flopping on those issues; instead, he is working to convince conservatives of his positions while taking his message to moderate voters.

2. He's already in the lead.

Bush leads the RealClearPolitics polling average (although Scott Walker and Marco Rubio are very close behind). His drive to attract moderate voters will expand his base of support. Few others are competing for the same voters, leaving Bush nowhere to go but up.

After a shake-up in the management of his campaign even before it launches, many have suggested that Bush's campaign is faltering. I'm reminded of July 2007, when John McCain's campaign manager and chief strategist left. The entire campaign was downsized. In the end, McCain's shake-up was worse than Bush's, and things turned out okay for McCain. Surely Bush can do the same, if not better.

3. Other Republicans are shifting to the right.

At one point in the last few months I thought Walker had the best chance of winning the nomination. Then he showed what kind of voters he was trying to attract by taking ultra-conservative positions on national policy issues. Very conservative voters were already impressed by Walker's record of standing up to intense union opposition, and many would have supported him anyway. By shifting to the right on immigration, foreign policy and social issues, Walker has made himself look more conservative and less attractive to voters who weren't already inclined to support him.

With other Republicans moving rightward, there's a vacuum in the middle of the electorate — one that Bush is well-placed to fill.

4. Hillary Clinton is shifting to the left.

Clinton started the campaign with an unprecedented lead against her competitors. With the Democratic nomination all but sealed, it would only make sense for her to stay in the ideological center so as not to scare away moderate general election voters. Instead, Clinton has done the opposite, championing left-wing causes like debt-free college and automatic voter registration.

The New York Times' David Brooks has called Clinton's campaign strategy a "mistake" and bad for the country. Meanwhile, Brooks wrote, "Jeb Bush is trying to expand his party's reach." With Clinton abandoning independent voters, Bush's reach into the middle will go uncontested from the left, leaving Bush an opportunity to gain support.

5. No, Jeb doesn't have a "Bush" problem.

George H.W. Bush failed to win re-election in 1992. I'm sure some pundits must have thought the Bush family name would be tainted forever due to his unpopularity. But Bush's son won the presidency just eight years later, and was re-elected with more support than in his initial election. Today, George W. Bush's favorable ratings are above 50 percent, which is more than President Obama and Hillary Clinton can say about theirs.

Hillary's Obama problem is worse than Jeb's Bush problem.

The Democratic candidate, no matter who it is, is going to be tied to Obama's approval rating. Hillary Clinton will be especially tied to his foreign policy, having served as his secretary of state. The ongoing situation in Ukraine will cause her a lot of problems, given her "reset button" stunt.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6662


« Reply #29 on: July 01, 2015, 11:40:47 AM »

Trying to inoculate himself from stories that are on the way about his own 'Clinton Cash' machine.  Also trying to avoid the Mitt Romney train wreck.

Politico:  Jeb's Wealth to Riches Story  (funny title)

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/jeb-bush-tax-returns-119607.html?hp=r1_3
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6662


« Reply #30 on: July 01, 2015, 10:32:14 PM »

On Jeb Bush's reading list:  George Gilder:  Knowledge and Power

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/reading-lists.php

Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of Capitalism and How it is Revolutionizing our World

http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4572


« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2015, 06:44:46 PM »

Doug,

Your a Bush fan?   cry
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2015, 09:52:31 PM »

One does not have to be a fan to find this interesting IMHO.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6662


« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2015, 12:40:53 AM »

Doug,
Your a Bush fan?   cry

No.  But I wish I could pick and choose good qualities from each.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2015, 11:03:06 AM »

BTW,  it should be "You're a Bush fan?"  cheesy
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #35 on: July 13, 2015, 12:17:36 PM »

Jeb's Misstep Shows Problem With His Candidacy

By DICK MORRIS

Published on DickMorris.com on July 12, 2015

When Jeb Bush said that "people have to work longer hours and, through productivity,
gain more income for their families," he was doing much more than flubbing his
lines. He was flagging a basic reason not to nominate him.

Bush claimed that his remarks were taken out of context. And they were. He was
discussing the large number of Americans who are working part time and urging them
to seek full-time work. He should have gone on to attack the Obamacare law for
incentivizing part-time employment by requiring only employers of full time workers
to get them health insurance.

But, nevertheless, the very fact that he fell into this blooper illustrates the
problem. When people who are known for their wealth, like the Bushes and the Romneys
of the world, say things that seem out of touch, they are not given the benefit of
the doubt. Ask Marie Antoinette about her "let them eat cake" comment that some
historians say she never said. Or ask Bush Senior how his passivity in the face of
the 1991 recession was interpreted.

Class warriors in the Democratic Party are constantly on the lookout for such
remarks by rich Republicans. Mitt Romney had a point in saying that Democrats had a
lock on 47percent  of the vote. He was wrong only in that he included Medicare,
Social Security, and Veterans Benefits in his stat. If he left them out and spoke
only of the 35 percent on means-tested entitlements, he would have had it exactly
right. But it cost him the election nonetheless.

How did Jeb come to make such a gaffe? He probably got an economics briefing that
cited part-time work as a cause of low incomes. He naturally drew the interpretation
that people need to work longer hours. Someone with more street experience would
realize that very few of the part-time workers actually want only part-time work. In
2014, 7.3 million Americans worked part time but wanted full-time jobs. The briefer
forgot to mention that.

But Jeb doesn't realize the situation of part-time workers, so he flubbed the comment.

It will happen again and again. You cannot substitute good briefings for real
experience.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6662


« Reply #36 on: July 13, 2015, 04:33:25 PM »

It's going to be hard for all of them to run a 2 year campaign, take interviews continuously and not mis-speak, misunderstand or be taken wrong..

"But Jeb doesn't realize the situation of part-time workers, so he flubbed the comment."

That is the problem, when the screwup confirms something already suspected.

Part time work is a good and a bad thing, depending on a lot of other factors.  No sweeping statement can be said about it without spelling out context and that everyone faces different circumstances.  Like the Romney-47%, a lot of the 29 hourers like their leisurely life and their QE-subsidized healthcare, etc.

Meanwhile Hillary says workers want a raise, not longer hours.  In her world, a private sector raise, like family leave, comes from a government declaration or mandate, not by making the business climate more conducive to productive investment.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12675


« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2015, 05:22:46 PM »

Bush has all the charisma of a bowl of cold oatmeal.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2015, 05:41:06 PM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-medicare_55b11e41e4b0a9b94853e9eb?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #39 on: July 24, 2015, 06:24:22 AM »

s Florida Governor, Jeb Bush conquered what he called “Mount Tallahassee,” and now that he’s running for President he is proposing to do the same to “Mount Washington.” On Monday he offered some initial ideas on how to do it, and some are better than others.

The good news is that he wants to start by reducing the size of the bureaucratic Everest. “You can have a fast-expanding economy or you can have a fast expanding government, but you can’t have both,” he said in a speech at Florida State University.

His best idea would freeze the federal workforce and then reduce it by 10% over four years through attrition. In particular he proposes a “three-out, one-in” rule—one new hire for every three who leave. According to the White House budget office historical tables, that would shrink federal civilian employment by some 210,000 from the 2.114 million full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in the executive branch in 2015. As recently as 2008 there were 1.875 million FTEs.

For skeptics who doubt this is possible, Mr. Bush pointed to his record in Florida, where the state workforce fell by 11% over his eight years despite a rising state population. He can also point to Journal contributor and NYU scholar Paul Light, who has described the “inefficiency and bloat” of more than 10,000 senior executives “who occupy more than 60 layers of management just at the top” of the Washington organization chart. Ten percent may be shooting too low.

Mr. Bush also wants a line-item veto along the lines Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan has proposed. This is a hardy perennial, but it would at the margin enhance the power of a President who wants to control spending (unlike the current one).

“If we reform how government works,” Mr. Bush said, “and build capacity for people to achieve earned success by our very nature we’ll all become conservatives because the demands on government will subside.”

Mr. Bush’s other ideas are more populist gimmicks than genuine reforms. Take his pitch to dock the pay of Senators and Congressmen when they don’t show up for votes. We’d be happier if a couple hundred of them didn’t show up at all. But in any case Mr. Bush couldn’t do this without Congress’s consent, and he’d need their votes to get more important things done. Americans can always throw the bums out during elections.

Even worse is Mr. Bush’s call for a six-year ban on lobbying for former members of the House and Senate, as well as expanding the definition of lobbyist so more people come under its restrictions. This buys into the liberal narrative that the problem in Washington is too many lobbyists.

Businesses have no choice but to lobby a government that can cripple them with a single new regulation. The First Amendment also gives all Americans the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The real problem is the opportunities for corruption and special dealing that a too-large government provides. Every new regulation or twist of the tax code is an opening for some powerful Member to assist the powerful. But the solution is to reduce the size and scope of the regulatory state and to reform the tax code. Mr. Bush says he plans to propose both regulatory and tax reforms, and those will do more to reduce the influence of lobbyists than will restrictions on lobbyists that will be evaded in any case.

One other benefit of a government that tries to do fewer things with fewer people: It might be able to launch a website without crashing.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34134


« Reply #40 on: August 05, 2015, 10:56:16 AM »

Ten weeks before the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., a financial disaster that ushered in the global economic crisis in September 2008, Jeb Bush was in Mexico City to seek help from billionaire Carlos Slim.

Mr. Bush signed on with Lehman after leaving the Florida governor’s mansion, making it clear he wanted work as a hands-on investment banker rather than hold a ceremonial role typically given ex-politicians. Now was his chance.

Mr. Bush was a longtime acquaintance of Mr. Slim, at the time ranked as the world’s second wealthiest individual and one of several deep-pocketed investors on Lehman’s radar. “Project Verde” was supposed to bring home badly needed cash and confidence. Mr. Slim, however, was more interested in talking baseball than investing in the troubled firm.


More doors closed that summer before Lehman shut its own, but Mr. Bush, following in the footsteps of a grandfather and great-grandfather, latched onto investment banking through the worst downturn since the Great Depression.

For more than seven years, nearly the length of his two gubernatorial terms, Mr. Bush, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, spent as much as half of his working hours advising Lehman and later Barclays, which bought the collapsed investment bank’s U.S. business. He wasn’t an employee of the firms, said people familiar with the matter, but was paid to attend meetings, dinners and conferences where he spoke to clients and bank executives on such subjects as health care, education, immigration and energy—matters he has started taking up this year with voters.

Mr. Bush earned about $1.3 million a year at Lehman and some $2 million from Barclays, his campaign said.


Bankers and trading executives described Mr. Bush’s contributions as “rich in content,” which on Wall Street translates to having the kind of timely expertise that clients expect from top firms on topics essential to their investments.

“I spent a lot of time, I probably spent about 40% of my time working for Barclays,” Mr. Bush told reporters in June. “I did a lot of their conferences where I spoke and I interacted with their clients.”

Mr. Bush received a warm welcome on Wall Street, where financial firms often seek former political figures to help open doors. At least six firms offered Mr. Bush a position when he finished his second term as governor in January 2007, according to people familiar with the matter.


When he joined Lehman in June that year, Mr. Bush was the brother of a sitting U.S. president, George W. Bush, and already had ties with the investment bank, known for its scrappy culture and aggressive management team led by chief executive Richard Fuld, a longtime Democrat.

Mr. Bush would spend most of his time at Lehman working under Steve Lessing, who had been a “Ranger” for George W. Bush, a title for supporters who raised at least $200,000 for Mr. Bush’s 2004 presidential campaign. Mr. Lessing headed client-relationship management and was the face of the firm to many money managers, hedge funds and insurance companies.

Mr. Bush soon drew the attention of Lehman’s senior investment bankers, who looked for ways to put him in front of clients. He appeared at conferences for health-care clients and corporate directors, and joined a ski junket for bankers, people familiar with the matter said. He crisscrossed the country and flew commercial, often alone.

In late 2007, Lehman executives who spotted him striding past in midtown Manhattan— BlackBerry pressed to his ear—said they recalled thinking that Mr. Bush, in a matter of months, had completed his transition from governor to harried bank executive. “This guy is the brother of the president, just walking by himself, no security,” a former Lehman manager said.

Mr. Bush said he spent most of his time at Lehman “dealing with their customer base, providing insights in things like the madness of Washington, D.C.”

More than a dozen of Mr. Bush’s former colleagues and clients described him as focused, blunt and often opinionated. Unlike most former politicians in finance, Mr. Bush was seen as “commercial,” almost a term of endearment on Wall Street meaning he understood how bankers prepared for meetings, advised clients and made money. He frequently reminded clients he was part of a team and ended meetings with a “thank you for letting us work for you,” or a direct appeal to hire the bank, recalled one former Barclays banker.

Mr. Bush’s banking experience is unusual for a presidential candidate, said Barbara Perry, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. More common backgrounds are in law, politics or the U.S. military. Finance, however, is part of the Bush family history. Jeb’s great-grandfather, George Herbert Walker, and grandfather, Prescott Bush, both worked at the firm that became investment bank Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.

“I’d say for the Kennedys, politics was in their DNA,” Ms. Perry said. “In the case of the Bushes, it’s both politics and high finance.”

Ohio’s Republican Gov. John Kasich, another candidate for the GOP nomination, also worked as a managing director at Lehman in the eight years leading up its 2008 demise.

Mr. Bush’s Wall Street work could play well with many traditional Republican voters. It also could be a lightning rod for criticism.

Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential nominee in 2012, was pilloried by some of his Republican primary competitors, as well as President Barack Obama’s campaigners, for his longtime work as a private-equity executive.

“If 2012 taught us anything, it is that you have to be well-prepared to tell your story about your business experience in a proactive way before your opponents frame it negatively around your neck as an albatross with voters,” said Kevin Madden, a top aide to Mr. Romney during his 2008 election bid.

Mr. Bush has previously taken a softer line toward the financial sector than his campaign rivals, particularly Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, who are also seeking the Republican nomination.

Earlier this year, a political-action committee that has endorsed Mr. Paul launched an ad campaign dubbed “Bailout Bush.” The group criticized Mr. Bush for, among other things, his stints at Lehman and Barclays, as well as his past endorsement of government support for banks during the crisis.

At a November 2013 event for a Wall Street trade group, Mr. Bush said banks have been unfairly maligned. Privately, he has voiced issues with the landmark Dodd-Frank bill to overhaul financial regulations after the crisis.

“If you listen to most of the media, the banks and the financial industries in general are bad, and they should be shrunk or taken apart,” Mr. Bush said at the 2013 gathering, adding that a “strong banking sector is essential to provide the capital that fuels economic growth.”

He also said that banks, “while having made some terrible and costly decisions in the past, are now doing business in a much more responsible way.”

Mr. Bush’s contracts with Lehman and Barclays stipulated the firms wouldn’t ask him to lobby Washington, people familiar with the matter said. As Barclays and other banks scrambled to influence the wave of new rules in the wake of the financial crisis, former colleagues said, Mr. Bush stayed out of it.

Around the time of his 2008 Mexico City trip, Mr. Bush was on the board of a Lehman fund pursuing investments in toll roads and other public works. His successor, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, in the months after Mr. Bush left office, had signed a bill allowing the state to lease some toll roads, including a stretch of interstate 75, known as Alligator Alley.

Mr. Bush studied documents and advised Lehman executives on the deal, as well as the state’s political pitfalls, according to people familiar with the discussions. Mr. Bush brought lots of energy and “creative problem-solving skills” to Lehman, said Emil Henry, a former executive with the firm who has been active in GOP politics.

By August 2008, Lehman had joined a consortium that was among six bidders on the project. The firm collapsed the following month and Barclays, a U.K.-based lender, bought its U.S. operations following a bankruptcy filing.
Lehman’s fall

Mr. Bush said he wasn’t consulted about Lehman’s difficulties as it veered toward bankruptcy, according to congressional testimony and people familiar with the matter. During a 2012 U.S. House committee hearing, he said no one asked him to intervene on behalf of the firm. Mr. Bush said Mr. Fuld, Lehman’s chief executive, “didn’t ask me to do anything, and I didn’t do anything.”

Mr. Fuld had weighed asking Mr. Bush to call his brother, the president, and raised the idea to some of his executives, people familiar with the matter said. They urged their boss against it, arguing it would put the Bush brothers in an awkward position, the people said, and they doubted it would help.

After Lehman’s collapse, Mr. Bush followed Mr. Lessing to Barclays as a senior adviser, a post he kept until stepping down in December 2014 to weigh a presidential run. The request to keep Mr. Bush after the takeover was blessed by Robert Diamond, then Barclays’s chief executive and a Massachusetts native who had been a fundraiser for John McCain’s 2008 campaign, people familiar with the matter said.

Executives at insurer MetLife Inc. came to view Mr. Bush as part of Barclays’ “coverage team,” the bankers who would regularly call on the insurance company’s leaders, according to people familiar with the matter.

While at Barclays, Mr. Bush also became a trusted adviser to Cigna Inc. Chief Executive David Cordani, people familiar with the matter said.

“Our discussions with key leaders, including Jeb Bush, enable us to understand the perspectives of key thought leaders and share our ideas,” said a spokesman at Cigna, a Bloomfield, Conn., health insurer.

The Affordable Care Act has helped draw Cigna and other managed-care companies into a merger frenzy to save costs and expand market share. Last month, Cigna agreed to sell itself to rival Anthem Inc.

Mr. Lessing said Mr. Bush “added unquestionable value to our clients over the years, and we are delighted they were able to benefit from his time as a senior adviser with us.”

“It wasn’t the Barclays view, it was the Jeb view, about how the world works and it seems to have been quite effective,” Mr. Bush said during the June news briefing. “The amount of time I spent traveling the world talking to their top clients was an indication that I did add value for the enterprise.”

Mr. Bush’s life on Wall Street marked a return to finance. After graduating from the University of Texas in 1974, he took a job at Texas Commerce Bank, a lender founded by the family of James Baker III, who later held cabinet posts in the administration of Mr. Bush’s father, former President George H.W. Bush.

Jeb Bush had joined the bank’s international division, where he worked on analyzing sovereign risks. While based in Caracas, Venezuela, he was frequently on the road to meet clients, extending the banks’ reach to Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Chile. He took a leave of absence in 1980 to work on his father’s campaign and never returned.

Mr. Bush’s fluency in Spanish and extensive experience in Latin America made him a good choice for the July 2, 2008, trip to Mexico City. He also knew Mr. Slim well: the Mexican billionaire had lent a collection of small-scale Rodin sculptures for the Florida governor’s mansion when Mr. Bush lived there.

Lehman was canvassing a number of rival banks and financial companies in the wake of Bear Stearns Cos.’s near-collapse and rescue by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. earlier that year.

The trip also gave Mr. Bush a chance to accompany Arizona’s Sen. McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, for part of a campaign swing to Latin America. On July 3, Mr. Bush joined Mr. McCain and his wife for a tour of the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Mr. Bush and a handful of Lehman advisers also met with Mr. Slim in his office that day to propose a number of deals, including an investment in Lehman. The answer, the Lehman team soon learned, was no.

“Project verde was unsuccessful,” Mr. Bush wrote to a colleague after the meeting in a July 5, 2008 email made public during Lehman’s bankruptcy proceedings. “He did not express interest in jv or stock purchase.”

About two months later, on the Monday that Lehman filed for bankruptcy, Mr. Bush was in Florida alongside Mr. McCain.

At a campaign stop in Jacksonville, Mr. McCain railed against the Bush administration’s failure to regulate Wall Street and said taxpayers shouldn’t pay for Lehman’s bailout. “I promise you we will never put America in this position again,” Mr. McCain told voters. “We will clean up Wall Street.”

Write to Justin Baer at justin.baer@wsj.com
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!