Xtra News Community 2
April 20, 2024, 05:11:54 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

Is this some evil joke?

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is this some evil joke?  (Read 302 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
guest49
Guest
« on: April 07, 2014, 05:04:20 pm »

Quote
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush says that he will base his decision on whether to run for president in 2016 on whether he thinks he can mount a campaign that would transcend the modern-day mechanics of such a run.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/9913264/Jeb-Bush-to-decide-on-presidential-run-this-year

Didn't Dubya do enough damage?
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32251


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2014, 12:03:59 pm »


From the Los Angeles Times....

Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton play their own Games of Thrones

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM PST - Wednesday, April 09, 2014



IT HAS been 22 years since a Clinton faced off against a Bush. Will it happen again in 2016? In the parlance of “Game of Thrones,” will House Clinton and House Bush vie for a return to power?

There have been only six years since 1989 — the Obama years — when the American president’s last name was not Clinton or Bush. And, during four of those six years, Hillary Rodham Clinton was prominent in the headlines as secretary of State. Bushes and Clintons have been permanent fixtures in the political landscape. Now, with numerous nascent campaigns already revving their engines long before the start of the 2016 race for the White House, the widely held assumption is that Hillary will not only run, but that she will easily become the Democratic nominee with an inside track at becoming the first female president of the United States.

Much of that expectation rests on the strong possibility that the militant base of the GOP will choose from among the contenders a candidate who is too extreme for the American electorate. That is the Democrats’ fondest hope. Their biggest worry is that Republicans will, instead, experience a moment of sanity and choose Jeb Bush.

The prospects for another Bush presidency seemed slight when Jeb’s brother left office in 2009 after an embarrassingly bad eight years, but public opinion about George W. has grown less harsh with the passage of time. No longer a figure who inspires passionate loathing, he seems merely a congenial fellow who should have pursued his amateur painting career instead of trying to run the world. Jeb, on the other hand, looks like the smarter and more genuinely compassionate conservative in the family.

That compassion came through loud and clear in remarks on Sunday in which he said many immigrants cross the border illegally as “an act of love” in support of their needy families. In reaction, fake conservative commentator Stephen Colbert joked that Bush “will be missed,” given that empathy for undocumented immigrants is anathema to the GOP hard-liners who dominate the primaries. Real conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, meanwhile, speculated that Bush was being clever, picking a fight with right-wingers simply to get the inevitable clash out of the way before campaigning begins in earnest.

The “act of love” comment, Limbaugh said on his radio program, is “designed to tick us all off or tick the Tea Party people off now. Get it done with and over with and then out of the way, and move on.”

Whether he sought a fight or not, Bush certainly knew his comment would not go unnoticed. He had openly discussed a run for the nomination only days before. Taking a more liberal stance on immigration with such bold language was not a gaffe. It was positioning.

Not everyone believes that it was smart positioning. On Fox News, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer called Bush’s comment “bizarre” and said it would come back to haunt him. In a discussion on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said he was so sure Bush would never be the nominee that he promised everyone on the panel a good dinner in New York City if he were proved wrong. Kristol’s prediction may be excellent news for Bush because, as one Daily Kos columnist noted, Kristol has a notoriously bad track record as a political prognosticator.

Of course, nobody can claim to have all the answers at this point in the long slog toward the 2016 election. Perhaps, though, we know the most pertinent question: Have Americans had enough of the Bush and Clinton families or are they ready for a battle of dynasties?


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-jeb-bush-and-hillary-clinton-20140408,0,4198651.story
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2014, 05:13:42 am »

The “Rule of Money” and Corruption in America. Predatory Capitalism Feeds on Public Dollars, Forced Debt

McCutcheon should become a rallying cry for a focused campaign to ‘end the rule of money’

While some still believe the United States is the greatest democracy on Earth, the US is actually a plutocracy, a government ruled by the wealthiest. The recent Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon will subject us to an even stronger plutocracy that no one will be able to deny. The ‘rule of money’ will become more deeply entrenched at a time of economic and environmental crisis.

In the US today, a small group of people rule over hundreds of millions of us through a government corrupted by money; and controls the economy through mega-businesses that receive special treatment from that government, prevent entrepreneurial competition and control tens of millions of people through low wages and high debt. The plutocrats fund the only two parties allowed to run for office and the people are manipulated by fear to vote against their interests in a mirage democracy of rigged elections.

The legitimacy of the US government is now in question. By illegitimate we mean it is rule by the 1%, not a democracy ‘of, by and for the people.’ The US has become a carefully designed plutocracy that creates laws to favor the few. As Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissenting opinion, American law is now “incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy.” Or, as former president, Jimmy Carter said on July 16, 2013 “America does not at the moment have a functioning democracy.”

Even members of Congress admit there is a problem. Long before the McCutcheon decision, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) described the impact of the big banks on the government saying: “They own the place.” We have moved into an era of a predatory form of capitalism rooted in big finance where profits are more important than people’s needs or protection of the planet.

It is up to us to use McCutcheon to energize the movement against money-corruption of the government and economy. Throughout history, bad court decisions have helped energize movements; people power can make that happen again. Already there is a growing movement against the American plutocracy.

Predatory Capitalism Feeds on Public Dollars, Forced Debt

Where does the strength of the plutocrats come from? Their control of public policies has created a massive welfare state for the wealthy while the rest of us are driven into debt. Understanding this relationship is essential if we are going to end it.

This week Strike Debt, an off-shoot of Occupy Wall Street, published the second edition of The Debt Resisters’ Operations Manual. They open the manual by describing the pervasiveness of debt:

“Everyone is affected by debt, from people taking out payday loans at 400% interest to cover basic living costs, to recent graduates paying hundreds of dollars in interest on their students loans every month, to working families bankrupted by medical bills, to elders living in ‘underwater’ homes, to the teachers and firefighters forced to take pay cuts because their cities are broke, to people in the global South suffering due to their countries being pushed into austerity and poverty by structural adjustment programs. Everyone seems to owe something, and most of us are in so deep it’ll be years before we have any chance of getting out—if we have any chance at all.”

Strike Debt points out that “over three-quarters of us have some type of personal debt. At least 14% of people living in the United States are already being pursued by debt collectors, which is more than double from a decade ago.” Putting people into the debt of big banks is “a profoundly effective form of social control.” When students leave school anchored by massive debt, it limits their choices. When underpaid workers are in debt with credit card bills or mortgages, it makes it impossible for them to fight for fair treatment at work or to quit and risk not being able to find another job.

Why do we have these debts? Because the policies put in place by corporate-dominated political parties have created unjust laws over time that ensure we accumulate massive debt. As Strike Debt summarizes the situation:

“The reason you have tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills is that we don’t provide medical care to everyone. The reason you have tens of thousands of dollars of student loans is because the government, banks, and university administrators have contrived to cut government subsidies that support education while driving college costs through the roof. Unlike fifty years ago, it’s simply impossible for all but the wealthiest to attend college without them. Bubbles drive housing and food prices up, wages are kept artificially low so that they don’t keep up with inflation, and more and more of us rely on proliferating forms of ‘casual,’ ‘flexible,’ and part-time employment.”

The denial of basic services and education puts Americans from the poor through the upper middle class in economic peril. To add insult to injury, our public dollars that could pay for essential services and education are used instead to enable predatory behavior by big corporations. The biggest recipients of welfare are big business interests like Walmart and the big banks.

Walmart is the largest private employer in the US, with annual profits of over $15 billion. The six Walmart heirs have more wealth than the bottom 40% of all Americans combined. How did they get there? Massive government subsidies are central to Walmart’s business plan. These include tax breaks from state and local governments for each of their nearly 5,000 stores in the United States. And government subsidies to their employees for healthcare, food and housing because Walmart pays poverty wages. Of all retail outlets, Walmart is the largest recipient of government assistance in the country.

However, the biggest recipients of government assistance are the banks themselves. Through the private corporation known as the Federal Reserve, the banks have been given trillions of dollars in virtually no-interest loans. The banks then lend the money to the government at an immediate profit or to consumers and businesses for an even bigger profit. And then the banks borrow on those loans and expand their wealth even further, using the money to gamble on derivatives or other risky activities that put the economy at risk.

By giving the banks the governmental power to make money, a handful of Wall Street banks have become the dominant sector of the economy. Retaking the governmental power to create money would be a major step towards transforming the economy.

As if these subsidies aren’t enough, the banks and other large corporations also avoid paying taxes. One of many tax avoidance schemes is to keep money off-shore. A new report from ISI Research finds that U.S. S&P 500 companies now have $1.9 trillion parked outside the country. There have been proposals for a global tax on this income, but in our government owned by banks, these do not move forward.

While there are many predatory practices by the big banks against people in the United States, it is sometimes easier to see them when we look at behavior around the world.  As the Debt Resister’s Operations Manual points out, “in 2008, the world’s poorest countries were paying $23 million a day in interest payments to the rich industrial world, for loans where the original principal had often already been paid back several times over.” In the US and around the world, they point out that: “Debt … has become the primary form of extracting and accumulating wealth for the rich.”

As a result of World Bank policies, millions of people are being thrown off their land because large corporations are being given special rights. The World Bank is driving this destructive trend with its Doing Business rankings, which force countries to compete with each other to do away with things like environmental protections, worker’s rights and corporate taxes. “The World Bank is facilitating land grabs and sowing poverty by putting the interests of foreign investors before those of locals,” says Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute.

The other major international bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) provides loans to countries that come with policy conditions, called Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), that require austerity and privatization of social services and resources. These SAPs undermine the government and economy, increase poverty and suffering and thus, lead to social unrest. Despite this, recent reports indicate the IMF is increasing the number of structural conditions and using its power to dominate highly sensitive, political policy areas (for example the recent $18 billion loan to Ukraine which will require cutting retirement benefits in half from roughly $100 to $50 per month).

All of these policies have had a dramatic and harmful impact. As economist Joseph Stiglitz testified recently “America has achieved the distinction of becoming the country with the highest level of income inequality among the advanced countries.” Strike Debt notes “the United States ranks 138th out of 141 countries in terms of wealth equality.” Stiglitz told the Senate Banking Committee there is “a vicious circle: our high inequality is one of the major contributing factors to our weak economy and our low growth.”

But even more stark than income inequality is wealth inequality, which is worsening. Due to debt, 47% of Americans have zero wealth while the “richest 0.1 percent of Americans have dramatically expanded their share of the country’s overall wealth in the last three decades.” Wealth is important because it represents ownership and control, “a higher concentration of wealth naturally implies that fewer individuals control the decisions made by firms in the economy,” according to Princeton’s Atif Mian and University of Chicago’s Amir Sufi.

The Revolt Against American Plutocracy

People are revolting against plutocracy in a variety of ways in the US and around the world. There are movements to eliminate the corrupting influence of money on politics, against austerity, for living wages, to end extreme energy extraction, to end insurance-based healthcare, to stop privatization of schools, to transform the Federal Reserve, to erase debt and many other issues.

The Debt Resister’s Manual points out that “Movements for debt resistance have a very long history. From ancient times, people have challenged the harsh penalties visited on defaulters, including branding, torture, imprisonment, and even slavery. In ancient Athens, the first known democratic constitution came about largely as a result of an outright rebellion of debtors…” And, they report we see protests growing: “Around the world, popular movements are beginning to rattle the chains, seeing debt for what it is—a form of domination and exploitation—and collectively rising up against it.”

People recognize that much of debt is illegitimate. The corrupt government allows usury interest rates and unfair loan practices. Cuts to social services and education force people into debt. The solutions are obvious, though we are told they are too radical. The Debt Resister’s Manual points out that “there was a kind of jubilee in Iceland after the 2008 economic crisis: instead of bailing out their banks, Iceland canceled a percentage of mortgage debt.”

In addition to resistance, people are building alternatives to corrupt big finance capitalism. The new economy that people are striving to create is defined by our values. Strike Debt summarizes:

“Our values will serve as our North Star: putting people and nature before profits; meeting need and not greed; empowering all and not just a few; becoming less alienated from our work and from each other; and creating more leisure time to spend with our loved ones.”

Jerome Roos of ROAR Magazine outlines the possibilities of a new finance system that was described at the Moneylab Conference in Amsterdam last week. He challenges his readers to think about money differently and to recognize that though our current monetary system is based on debt, it doesn’t have to be that way.

The Freelancer’s Union calls the growing new economy the “Quiet Revolution” and they invite people to map what their community is doing – cooperatives, collectives, local food networks. Another organization, the Democracy Collaborative, publishes a list of projects that we can all learn from on Community-Wealth.org. Next month we are holding a conference in Baltimore to work on creating a new local economy based on economic democracy that includes worker-owned businesses, new ways of structuring finance, affordable housing, clean energy and food security. One new form of urban agriculture that is taking off is the vertical farm.

People are discussing essential ideas that elected officials who represent the plutocrats will not even acknowledge. If we create new models, then they will eventually become the policy of the US and much of the world.  For example, when you recognize that wealth comes from the commons – built on infrastructure like roadways and the Internet that we all pay for, or the intellectual and technical knowledge that universities and government research grants have paid for – and that major growth in the economy has always had major government involvement from the railroads to the Internet, then it becomes evident we must all share the wealth that this commons has created.

And because robotics and other technology mean there will be fewer jobs, indeed in the future we will not have enough jobs, we have to figure out new ways to provide income so that all can participate in the economy. One solution that is being discussed by those outside the major political parties is a guaranteed minimum income. This is one example of why we need to be independent of the two parties and not be limited by the agenda of either ‘rule of money’ based party.

Time to Energize the Movement to End the Rule of Money

The ‘arc of justice’ does not bend toward plutocracy. People powered movements that are building today will end plutocratic rule.

Last week we reported on two campaigns that were announced for this spring, the Worldwide Wave of Action and the Global Climate Convergence. After we published that article, two more campaigns were announced. Reset the Net, seeks to restore privacy to the Internet by our own actions rather than waiting for the government. People are taking action now to push Internet providers to provide privacy. Many would go further and make the Internet a public utility whose mission is to serve the public.  Second, is a campaign against the abuses of international finance, particularly by the World Bank, Our Land Our Business. The IMF and World Bank have their meeting from October 10 to 12 in Washington, DC and actions are being urged around the world during that time period.

Rather than being despondent about the Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon, we should use it to energize and focus our efforts. Every issue is impacted by the corruption of the ‘rule of money.’ We know we cannot achieve the transformation that is needed so long as this corruption continues. A focal point of the ‘movement of movements’ must be to end the influence of money in US elections so it can be legitimately called a democracy.

The legitimacy of government is at the root of the founding of our nation. Our favorite ‘founder,’ Thomas Paine, put forward ideas that were ignored by those who wrote the Constitution, e.g. abolition of slavery, voting rights for all including woman and African Americans, healthcare for all and equitable sharing of the wealth of the nation. Now, 238 years later we are still fighting for some of his beliefs. In his article “We are Radicals at Heart: A New History Gets America Wrong,” Harvey J. Kaye writes that Paine told us “that history is not over, that prevailing inequalities and oppressions are not inevitable, and that we need to remember who we are and recognize that ‘We have it in our power to begin the world over again.’”

This will not be the first time in history that a corrupt court decision has inspired action. Indeed, the recognition that the British Crown was illegitimate came in part out of a court decision upholding the Great Writs – which allowed British authorities to search colonists at whim.

In 1761 James Otis argued against the Great Writs on behalf of Massachusetts colonists subjected to searches by British troops and Customs officials. He argued in a five hour oration before a packed State House, a speech that was printed in full in 1773 that searches without any oath for their basis allows the Crown’s authorities to “enter our houses when they please.” When the Crown court ruled against Otis in the Great Writs case, a young court reporter, John Adams, recorded the event writing “Then and there the child independence was born.”

Let us turn the corrupt decisions, Citizens United and McCutcheon, into our rallying cry for a government independent of the corrupting influence of money; and to create the kind of economic democracy and participatory government to which the ‘arc of justice’ points us.

This article is produced by PopularResistance.org in conjunction with AlterNet.  It is based on PopularResistance.org’s weekly newsletter reviewing the activities of the resistance movement.

Kevin Zeese, JD and Margaret Flowers, MD are participants in PopularResistance.org; they co-direct It’s Our Economy and co-host Clearing the FOG. Their twitters are @KBZeese and MFlowers8. 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-rule-of-money-and-corruption-in-america-predatory-capitalism-feeds-on-public-dollars-forced-debt/5377334


Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision bad for democracy

In the spirit of the “All men are created equal” clause in the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers included in Article 1 of the US Constitution a prohibition against aristocracy: “No title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.” And to make certain that all people have the right to influence their government, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Nevertheless, Chief Justice John Roberts and the four more conservative justices of the US Supreme Court in their McCutcheon ruling last Wednesday abolished federal and any applicable state limits to how much one individual can give to political campaigns. By equating money with speech, the Roberts Court enabled Big Money donors to drown out the voices of everyday Americans with a deluge of campaign cash.

The one donor limit retained by the ruling was a cap of $2,600 per candidate per election cycle. However, by abolishing the total political contribution amount, the Roberts ruling allows big donors to give unlimited amounts to political parties and other fundraising groups that can then funnel unlimited money to any candidate.

Since 1976, the Supreme Court had drawn a distinction between direct campaign contributions – which the Court said could lead to both the corruption of government and the appearance of corruption – and money spent independent of political campaigns. However, the line between spending by independent groups like the SuperPAC American Crossroads and candidates’ official campaigns has become increasingly blurred in recent election years.

Complicating the issue is the flood of so-called Dark Money from 501(c)(4) “social welfare organizations” not required to disclose their donors and basically free from spending limits. These groups have become increasingly partisan and increasingly powerful, using their war chests both to bash the candidates they oppose and to shape the campaign debate to favor the candidates they back.

This vast flood of money into political campaigns is happening at a time when Americans are increasingly concerned about the very real divide between the super rich and the average American worker. Too many working Americans are worried about making the house payment, buying gas, and putting food on the table; they simply do not have the means to contribute even the $123,200 limit struck down by the McCutcheon decision.

That does not mean, however, that voters are unaware of what money can do. “Buying Face Time” and “Pay to Play” have entered the American lexicon. We all know it looks like corruption and smells like corruption, even those of us without deep enough pockets to play the game.

Both the Roberts decision and the blistering dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer call on Congress to revisit campaign finance reform, but that is unlikely to happen with this Congress, when so many of our elected representatives see themselves benefitting from the current system.

As any student of politics can tell you, the only way to counter out-sized amounts of money in politics is with larger numbers of people. Especially people committed to using the ballot box to get their elected representatives’ attention.

It is about time for the vast majority of Americans who see both the corruption and the appearance of corruption that result from unlimited campaign contributions to say Enough. Our Constitution makes clear that rule by the elite few is un-American. Our history is full of examples of how our system of government has worked to curb and limit the influence of wealth and power; it is time to do it again.

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/04/07/supreme-courts-mccutcheon-decision-bad-for-democracy/7427545/
« Last Edit: April 12, 2014, 05:20:32 am by Im2Sexy4MyPants » Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32251


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2014, 10:56:08 pm »


From the Los Angeles Times....

Clintons are poised to steal the national spotlight from Obama

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM PST - Wednesday, May 07, 2014



MONICA LEWINSKY is back in the news, a clear harbinger of the country’s imminent return to a political world dominated by the Clintons.

In the upcoming issue of “Vanity Fair”, Lewinsky declares that she wants to take control of her own narrative. “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress,” she says. “I, myself, deeply regret what happened between me and President Clinton. Let me say it again: I. Myself. Deeply. Regret. What. Happened.”

Lewinsky affirms that the affair that led to Clinton’s impeachment was consensual. “Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath,” she says, “when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position. ... The Clinton administration, the special prosecutor’s minions, the political operatives on both sides of the aisle, and the media were able to brand me. And that brand stuck, in part because it was imbued with power.”

Whether Lewinsky can now, or ever, regain control of her own story is questionable. She continues to dwell on the weak side of a vastly uneven power balance, a titillating footnote in a much bigger narrative. That inequity will become even more pronounced in coming months as the wife who was sleeping upstairs while Lewinsky and the president were having their romp downstairs in the Oval Office contemplates a return to the White House.

The person even more threatened with losing control of the narrative is the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Stuck with low poll numbers, hobbled by a Congress that opposes everything he does and facing the inevitable ebb of political clout in the lame duck end of his presidency, Barack Obama will have a tough time holding the attention of the media if Hillary Clinton declares her candidacy.

Clinton, the sequel, will simply be an irresistible story. In a Sunday New York Times column, Maureen Dowd said the Clintons were already sucking all the oxygen out of the room, leaving Obama gasping for air. The Clinton political machine has “Rasputin resilience,” Dowd wrote. “Things have now reached the point where it feels as though 42 and 45 have already taken over the reins of Washington power from 44, who is fading Snap-chat fast.”

Dowd may be too embedded in the intrigues of Washington to notice that the 44th president still gets more notice than Hillary or Bill in the America beyond the Beltway, but she is not wrong to think interest in the Clintons will expand rapidly. America loves watching celebrity family melodramas, whether it’s the lowbrow Kardashians or the royal Windsors, and the Clintons feed that guilty pleasure like none other.

With Hillary, the pre-emptive favorite to coast to the Democratic nomination if she wants it, some Democrats worry that a sudden flood of reminders about the unseemly aspects of the first Clinton presidency could sour voters on another Clinton candidacy. It’s possible that such concern is warranted. On the other hand, most Americans made up their minds about the Clintons years ago and a rehash of old dramas may have little effect.

Those who hate Bill and Hillary despised them from the start and never voted for them. Those who like them have forgiven Bill for being a scamp and continue to be seduced by his personal charm and political skill. They believe Hillary has shown fortitude in her marriage, has proved her own political savvy as a senator and secretary of State and now deserves her chance to make history by becoming the first female president of the United States.

The certainty that Hillary’s candidacy would be met with a vicious onslaught from the right can’t be an especially appealing prospect to those inclined to support her, but the same relentless attack has been a feature of the Obama era from the day he took office. Perhaps that is a factor in the Democrats’ willingness to buy into the controversial Clinton brand. Unlike Obama, the Clintons know how to get down in the mud and play rough. In an age when politics is all bare fists, groin kicks and switchblades, “Rasputin resilience” may be what Democrats are looking for.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-clintons-steal-spotlight-20140506-story.html
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32251


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2016, 03:19:39 pm »


from The Washington Post....

Jeb Bush drops out of 2016 presidential campaign

By ED O'KEEFE | 9:46PM EST - Saturday, February 20, 2016

Jeb Bush jokingly gestures to applause as he is introduced to speak at a town hall on Thursday at Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center in Columbia, South Carolina. — Photograph: Andrew Harnik/Associated Press.
Jeb Bush jokingly gestures to applause as he is introduced to speak at a town hall on Thursday at Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center
in Columbia, South Carolina. — Photograph: Andrew Harnik/Associated Press.


COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA — Jeb Bush, who sought to join his father and brother in winning the White House, suspended his campaign for the presidency on Saturday night after a long year-long slide in the polls and a disappointing showing in the South Carolina primary.

“I'm proud of the campaign we won to unify our country, and to advocate conservative solutions…. But the people of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have spoken,” Bush said to a hotel ballroom full of staffers, donors and longtime friends, some of whom burst into tears. “Tonight I am suspending my campaign.”

“No!” someone shouted.

“Yeah,” he said before the room burst into applause.

“I congratulate my competitors that are remaining on the island.”

Bush pointedly did not name any of his Republican rivals during his short speech but said, “In this campaign, I have stood my ground, refusing to bend to the political winds.”

Bush's decision followed a devastating loss in the Palmetto State, a state that handed both his father and brother crucial victories but that has shifted toward a much more strident form of Republicanism in the years since. Bush was also under intensifying pressure from party leaders to clear the field so they could coalesce around a challenger to Donald Trump.

The former Florida governor's decision potentially frees tens of millions of dollars in financial support to other Republican presidential contenders. The most immediate beneficiary is expected to be Senator Marco Rubio (Republican-Florida), who has ties to several of Bush's top bundlers, many of whom have said that the senator is their second choice.

Bush's departure also removes the most high-profile contender from the GOP's “establishment” wing. While Bush has never lived or worked in Washington or held federal office, he was cast as a favorite of the party elite given his family lineage and close ties to many of the party's most generous backers and senior leaders.

Bush's decision ends a campaign that began with great confidence and anticipation. After almost a year of private deliberation with close aides, he first hinted at a presidential campaign shortly after Thanksgiving in 2014 and quickly built a team that included several aides from his two terms as Florida governor and other seasoned advisers.

The new Bush team trumpeted a “shock and awe” strategy that methodically amassed an unprecedented amount of money for his campaign and an allied super PAC. Bush's super PAC, Right to Rise USA, raised $118 million in 2015 to spend mostly on advertising attacking other GOP candidates. Right to Rise had spent at least $95.7 million backing him through Friday.

The advertising strategy forced former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to accelerate his decision-making about another candidacy this year. But it did not deter potential rivals — most notably Rubio, a one-time Bush protégé who proved to be a more capable campaigner than his mentor.

Despite his commanding financial edge and early lead in polls, Bush was a technocrat in a world of noise. He obsessed over details of his exhaustive policy plans, but abhorred political stagecraft. He relished giving minutes-long answers to simple questions during intimate town hall meetings with voters but struggled to give succinct answers in televised debates watched by millions.

Bush began slipping in public opinion polls last spring. He slipped further after struggling over four days in May to answer questions about George W. Bush's decision to launch the Iraq war, an ordeal that exposed him as unable and unwilling to answer a broader question on the minds of many voters: Why should Americans elect another president named Bush?

During a May 11th interview on the Fox News Channel, Jeb Bush said that, like his brother, he would have authorized military action against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein even though government intelligence used at the time was later deemed deeply flawed. Opponents in both parties quickly pounced, saying they would not have authorized the war. Some also suggested that Jeb Bush did not fully appreciate lingering, widespread opposition to the war.

The interview prompted voters to press Bush to explain his answer. First, he said he had misunderstood the question. Then he denounced the public’s focus on hypothetical questions. During an especially hostile exchange caught on camera after a rally in Reno, Nevada, Bush sparred with a college student over whether George W. Bush or President Obama was responsible for the rise of the Islamic State terror group. A day later, amid intense growing scrutiny, Bush conceded that “knowing what we know now,” he would not have authorized war in Iraq.

Questions about his family lingered throughout the campaign, but Bush insisted several times that a presidential campaign “can't be about the past; it can't be about my mom and dad, or my brother, who I love. It has to be about the ideas I believe in to move our country forward.”

Al Cardenas, a longtime Bush friend, said last summer that Bush's lead had shrunk because media attention was too focused on Bush's family history and not on his record as Florida governor. “It's about Bush, not Jeb,” he said.

Once people learned more about his time as governor, Cardenas predicted, “then it will become more about Jeb, not Bush.”

In the end, though, Bush brought his family close to him. Former president George W. Bush joined his younger brother at a rally for him outside Charleston this past week, and his mother joined him on the trail for a final slog through South Carolina.

Bush also struggled to deal with Trump, who used television interviews, Twitter and campaign rallies to mock Bush in deeply personal terms. In a particularly stinging critique that stuck, Trump accused Bush — who lost 40 pounds before launching his bid and maintaining an aggressive campaign schedule — of being a “low-energy” candidate lacking the stamina and demeanor needed to defeat Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Bush initially ignored Trump's attacks, making him seem unaware of the quickly changing dynamics of the Republican Party. His muted response to Trump raised questions about whether a candidate who last ran for political office in 2002 was capable of operating in the modern political environment.

The mockery and personal nature of the attacks had roots in the often-tense relationship between Trump and the Bushes that dated to the late 1980s, when George H.W. Bush briefly considered picking the businessman as his 1988 vice-presidential running mate.

Several times, Jeb Bush complained about the increasingly fast-paced, media-driven, hostile nature of American politics. After struggling through the first few televised debates, Bush admitted that he needed to embrace a new strategy contradictory to his patrician upbringing.

“I've had 62 years of life that's been jammed into my DNA that when somebody asks you a question, you're supposed to answer it,” he told reporters after a campaign stop in Atlantic, Iowa, in November. He added that “I'm learning the new art of acknowledging the question, being respectful of the questioner, of course, and then answering what's on my mind.”

Asked whether that was a change from his 1998 and 2002 campaigns for Florida governor, Bush said: “That's a change from 1953, when I was a baby.”

Over the course of his campaign, Bush rejected the tactics of Tea-Party-backed lawmakers who had supported a shutdown of the federal government and opposed then-House Speaker John A. Boehner (Republican-Ohio) and other leaders. He had been a strong supporter of educational reform adopted nationally, known as Common Core, and wrote a 300-page book outlining his views on comprehensive immigration reform — views that put him at odds with many Republicans.

Before launching the exploratory phase of his campaign, Bush said in December 2014 that the party nominee should be willing to “lose the primary to win the general without violating your principles.”

He vowed to campaign “joyfully”, saying that Republicans could only retake the White House if they reached out to voters who did not typically support conservatives. In the closing weeks of his campaign, he cast himself as a “steady hand” ready to be commander in chief.

“If you want a politician to just bob and weave, then I'm not your guy,” he told supporters Friday night in Central.

“You can't talk trash when you're running for president…. You can't focus-group things. You can't be a poll-driven politician who runs away when things get tough,” he added in Spartanburg on Friday.

Bush knew this, he said, because “I've had a front-row seat watching history” made by his father, George H.W. Bush, and his brother, George W. Bush.

Ultimately, Jeb Bush's quest to make presidential history failed.

As he departed the ballroom, Bush had tears in his eyes. On the rope line, he apologized to staffers and supporters but told one friend that they will now be able to have a beer together.

“Sorry, brother,” he told another.

Staffers and supporters stood stunned in the ballroom as he made the announcement, with only a handful aware of what he was about to say.

“This is a cycle that is bigger than all of us,” said Bush's senior adviser, Sally Bradshaw, as she hugged her staff and Bush's national finance chairman, Woody Johnson.

As he departed, Bush was asked by a reporter when he knew it was over. “This afternoon, this evening,” he said before turning to leave.

Several aides said that early exit-poll returns immediately showed that he was trailing by an insurmountable margin.

Before he announced the end of his campaign, several close friends from the Miami area sent him words of support, knowing that the end might be near.

“I pray for you to stay strong as you've been and you know how to be,” wrote his friend, Jorge Arrizurieta, who was still urging him to stay in the race.


• Ed O’Keefe is covering the 2016 presidential campaign for The Washington Post, with a focus on Jeb Bush and other Republican candidates. He's covered presidential and congressional politics since 2008. Off the trail, he's covered Capitol Hill, federal agencies and the federal workforce, and spent a brief time covering the war in Iraq.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jeb-bush-suspends-2016-campaign/2016/02/20/d3a7315a-d721-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
guest49
Guest
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2016, 04:29:53 pm »

I don't think the world could survive another Bush on the White House lawn.......
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32251


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2016, 04:41:35 pm »


Mind you, would the world survive four years of Donald Trump's warmongering against everyone on the planet he views as the bogeyman?
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
guest49
Guest
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2016, 06:50:08 pm »

Dunno, but I do know that the Bush family so far, have stirred up the middle east to a roaring frenzy!
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.063 seconds with 14 queries.