Jebra's Hail Mary

Bye Bye JEB!

Can George W. Bush Save Jeb?
With the crucial South Carolina primary nearing, the former president is finally campaigning for his brother.



Can George W. Bush Save Jeb?
With the crucial South Carolina primary nearing, the former president is finally campaigning for his brother.

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C.—Time and again this election, Jeb Bush has been outshone by more charismatic candidates. On Monday, there was a slight variation on the story. Once again, Jeb was outdone by a much more talented politician, but this time, it was a backer and not a rival: Jeb’s big brother George W. Bush.

It was the former president’s first appearance on the campaign trail this cycle, and it came just a few days before the South Carolina Republican primary, which is shaping up to be a make-or-break moment for Jeb. President Bush, along with his wife Laura and Senator Lindsey Graham, helped pack 3,000 people in for a rally in North Charleston. It’s proof that his popularity endures in South Carolina, but it’s too early to tell whether that popularity will prove transferrable.

Speaking for 20 minutes, George W. showed why—despite being “misunderestimated,” a malapropism he repeated for comic effect in North Charleston—he was such a successful politician. Bush is a natural, the kind of guy who can successfully kick off his stump speech with a lengthy anecdote about pig manure, and he seemed delighted to be back on the stump. Every other line seemed to elicit either laughs or applause. Mentioning his writing projects, he said, “They didn’t use to think I could read, much less write!” He quipped that the signature on his paintings was worth far more than the art.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-w-bush-help-jeb-break-his-doom-loop/462900/

 

LOL...John Ellis Bush Bush needs his mommy and big brother's help, because he just can't do it alone against Trump, Raf and former protégé, Rube.

 

Sort of like Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife needs help from Slick Willie against Bernard's onslaught?

 

Bush is out. Joe, please explain that cartoon now, please?

 

It is a play on his statement "Please clap" and the fact that he would drop out after South Carolina. His wilting exclamation point just denotes his obvious disappointment.

 

Another one bites the dust. Now you're going to see either Rubio or Cruz rake in the voters outside of Trump's ceiling of about 35%. My guess is it will be Rubio and Clinton when all is said and done.

 

Well, time to lose the Jeb cartoon, I think. He's history now. Thanks for explaining the cartoon. I'm sure you're correct, obvious disappointment. I wouldn't have the internal strength to handle being a loser. Whew! Still a couple more that should consider suspending their campaigns. Sigh..

 

A scenario like that would assure our first Hispanic president.

 

Buh-bye Bush, the supposed third...

 

Iqless- moron joe doesn't have the balls to explain this, but maybe you will:
Hillary is an old, rich, white, career politician. She takes more money from Wall Street and special interests than any other politician- everything dems are supposed to hate in a candidate.
How do you support her candidacy?

 

Why would an idiot that ONLY supports Wall Street Republicans, because there are no other kind of Republicans, care to even ask this question? I surmise that if Hillary Clinton was this lackey for Wall Street as you claim, you'd support her in a heartbeat....If Republicans had heartbeats.

 

Honestly, Moron Joe? You don't think Hillary is a Wall Street lackey? Be honest...

 

Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs Problem
She talks populism, but hobnobs with Wall Street



June 4, 2014

A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton delivered a much-touted policy speech at the New America Foundation in Washington, where she talked passionately about the financial plight of Americans who "are still barely getting by, barely holding on, not seeing the rewards that they believe their hard work should have merited." She bemoaned the fact that the slice of the nation's wealth collected by the top 1 percent—or 0.01 percent—has "risen sharply over the last generation," and she denounced this "throwback to the Gilded Age of the robber barons." Her speech, in which she cited the various projects of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation that address economic inequality, was widely compared to the rhetoric of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the unofficial torchbearer of the populist wing of the Democratic Party. Here was Hillary, test-driving a theme for a possible 2016 presidential campaign, sticking up for the little guy and trash-talking the economic elites. She decried the "shadow banking system that operated without accountability" and caused the financial crisis that wiped out millions of jobs and the nest eggs, retirement funds, and college savings of families across the land. Yet at the end of this week, when all three Clintons hold a daylong confab with donors to their foundation, the site for this gathering will be the Manhattan headquarters of Goldman Sachs.

Goldman was a key participant in that "shadow banking system" that precipitated the housing market collapse and the consequent financial debacle that slammed America's middle class. (A system that was unleashed in part due to deregulation supported by the Clinton administration in the 1990s.) This investment house might even be considered one of the robber barons of Wall Street. In its 2011 report, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a congressionally created panel set up to investigate the economic meltdown, approvingly cited a financial expert who concluded that Goldman practices had "multiplied the effects of the collapse in [the] subprime" mortgage market that set off the wider financial implosion that nearly threw the nation into a depression.

Hillary Clinton's shift from declaimer of Big Finance shenanigans to collaborator with Goldman—the firm has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation—prompts an obvious question: Can the former secretary of state cultivate populist cred while hobnobbing with Goldman and pocketing money from it and other Wall Street firms? Last year, she gave two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs audiences. (Her customary fee is $200,000 a speech.)

In recent years, Goldman Sachs has hardly exemplified the values and principles Clinton earnestly hailed in her speech. A few reminders:

• In April 2011, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who chairs the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a report, based on a two-year investigation, that concluded that Goldman had misled clients and Congress about its investments in securities related to the housing market. Levin called on the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate if Goldman had violated the law by selling complicated securities to customers without informing the buyers that Goldman would pocket profits if these financial products dropped in value. Goldman denied the charge, but the previous year Goldman had paid $550 million in a civil settlement with the SEC regarding its sale of these securities. (When the case was first filed, the SEC maintained that Goldman had committed fraud by creating and peddling a mortgage investment that was secretly designed to fail.)
• In March 2012, Greg Smith, a top Goldman executive who was resigning, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times slamming the screw-the-client culture that permeated Goldman: "To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money…I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It's purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them…It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as 'muppets,' sometimes over internal e-mail." The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission's report also described Goldman as a first-class predator: "Despite the first of Goldman's business principles—that 'our clients' interests always come first'—documents indicate that the firm targeted less-sophisticated customers in its efforts to reduce subprime exposure." In other words, the firm knowingly peddled junk to suckers who trusted it. The report quoted an expert who noted that Goldman's actions were "the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen" and who compared Goldman's wheeling-and-dealing to "buying fire insurance on someone else's house and then committing arson."
• Last year, the New York Times published a fascinating investigative article that revealed how Goldman Sachs and other financial firms engaged in shrewd maneuvers to drive up the cost of aluminum. This rigging of the market, the paper reported, "ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars." That did not help struggling middle-class families.

Given Hillary Clinton's Warrenesque address at the New America Foundation, I asked a spokesmen for the potential 2016 candidate if there was anything incongruous about her association with Goldman, and he forwarded this statement:

The support the Clinton Foundation receives from companies such as Goldman Sachs, organizations and individual donors helps maximize the impact of our philanthropic work. This support is helping enterprise partnerships in South America that are creating jobs; efforts to improve access to early childhood education in the U.S.; development programs that help small holder farmers in Africa; and rebuilding and economic development efforts in Haiti.

Goldman Sachs has been a long time supporter of the Clinton Global Initiative where they have advanced a commitment designed to support 10,000 women across the world through business training and education. We are grateful for their support.

A longtime Hillary Clinton adviser said, "She's not giving any more speeches to Goldman Sachs."

Clinton's relationship with Goldman Sachs is not unique. Bill and Hillary Clinton have always nurtured cozy ties with Wall Street—in terms of policies and funds-chasing (for their campaigns and the foundation). The chief economic guru of the Clinton administration was Robert Rubin, a former Goldman Sachs chairman, and the financial deregulation and free-trade pacts of the Clinton years have long ticked off their party's populists. In his new book, former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recalls visiting Bill Clinton at his Harlem office and asking his advice, as Geithner puts it, on "how to navigate the populist waters" and respond to the American public's anger about bailouts and Wall Street. The former president didn't seem to have much sympathy for these popular sentiments and replied by referring to the CEO of Goldman: "You could take Lloyd Blankfein into a dark alley and slit his throat, and it would satisfy them for about two days. Then the bloodlust would rise again."

If Hillary does decide to seek a return to the White House, can she straddle the line? Assail the excesses of Wall Street piracy and tout the necessity of economic fair play yet still accept the embrace, generosity, and meeting rooms of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street players? During her speech, she offered a good summation of populism, remarking "working with my husband and daughter at our foundation, our motto is 'We're all in this together,' which we totally believe." Yet her association with Goldman might cause some to wonder how firmly she holds this belief—and how serious she is about reining in those robber barons.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem

 

Still too chicken sh*t to explain why everything you've criticized Republicans as being is okay when it's your candidate?

 

More like, still not buying the bullshit you're selling.

For a political party that only elects those in bed with Wall Street, you sure come up with some interesting criticisms of the other party. The Sycophants for the wealthy suddenly want to know why anyone would vote for a candidate that has taken Wall Street money. If hypocrisy was and art, you fucking idiots would be Rembrandt.

 

Hillary has received a lot from Wall Street

Here are the numbers: Clinton received $2 million in itemized contributions from Wall Street (listed as "Securities and Investment"), out of a total of $77.5 million.

That works out to just under 3%.

OpenSecrets acknowledges that Clinton's claim is "technically right," but it says that's bad math.

First, when talking about Wall Street, OpenSecrets says it's appropriate to add contributions from commercial banks as well. That brings Clinton's Wall Street total to $2.5 million.

But the bigger flaw in Clinton's math is that it doesn't include any donations to super PACs, the political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money.

This is important because Wall Street is the second highest contributor (behind only Hollywood) to super PACs that have said they are supporting Clinton and only Clinton.

Clinton's Wall Street haul jumps to $6 million when super PAC money is included.

According to OpenSecrets, Clinton's Wall Street donors make up 7.2% -- not 3% -- of her fundraising because that's what you get when you divide $6 million by $83 million (the total for Clinton campaign contributors + Clinton super PAC money - small donors that Open Secrets can't trace).

http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/21/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-donations/

 

That's what I thought!
The candidate you are forced to support is an old, white, rich , career politician who's in bed with Wall Street and special interest. How does that taste after years of being told that is exactly what you were supposed to despise?
It must suck to be a lemming for a political party. SUCKER!!!!!

 

How does it feel to have supported the same type of politician you are describing Clinton as your entire life? Your criticism of Clinton sounds hollow and stupid from the point you hail from. You can't criticize firefighters from the point of the arsonist. You'll notice criminals always criticize those trying to catch them. And now we have the sycophants for the wealthy criticizing Hillary Clinton for being wealthy. Do you even understand how stupid you sound? I doubt it.

And by the way...

Republican Marco Rubio winning Wall Street fundraising race
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK | BY GINGER GIBSON AND GRANT SMITH

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio speaks during a rally at the Texas Station Hotel and Casino in North Las Vegas, Nevada February 21, 2016.
REUTERS/LAS VEGAS SUN/STEVE MARCUS

Republican Marco Rubio's presidential run has drawn more money from Wall Street donors than any other candidate, according to a Reuters review of campaign finance disclosures, shoring up his position as his party's establishment alternative to front-runner Donald Trump.

The U.S. senator from Florida has received more than $4 million from the employees of banks and investment firms like Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) since launching his bid for the presidency last year, according to the analysis of individual donations totaling more than $200 each. (Click here for a graphic: reut.rs/1Q4ZisK)

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who dropped out of the race on Saturday after poor finishes in the early nominating contests of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, came in second in Wall Street donations, accumulating $2.45 million in contributions, while Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton took third place with $723,361, according to the review.

The amounts include contributions to the candidates’ respective Super PACs, fundraising groups that are not directly connected to their campaigns but which spend on their behalf.

More money could be on the way for Rubio as the Republican field narrows. Within minutes of Bush leaving the race, for example, some of his donors told Reuters they were preparing to throw their financial support behind Rubio.

Wall Street donations, however, can hurt as well as help a candidate, especially with voters who blame bankers for the 2008 financial crisis and the ensuing Great Recession.

"The idea of raising cash from Wall Street is a tricky one," said University of Iowa professor Tim Hagle. "Even on the Republican side, there's a certain mistrust among the base for that sector."

But Hagle added that the financial support could help Rubio as he seeks to become the Republican party's anti-Trump candidate.

"The advantages of having the additional funding at this critical time seem to be worth the extra criticism that might come his way as a result," the professor said.U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who won Iowa's caucuses but trailed Rubio slightly in South Carolina's primary, where he had hoped to win second place, has drawn just under $85,000 from Wall Street employees, according to the review.

The support for Rubio was largely driven by donations to his allied Super PAC, Conservative Solutions. Billionaire investor Paul Singer endorsed Rubio in October and contributed $2.5 million to the Super PAC, according to the filings.

In January, Rubio raised $9,792, the third-highest total for the month in the presidential field behind Clinton, with $51,000, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, with $26,000. Christie has also dropped out of the race.

Bush raised just $5,513 from the sector in January.

Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Donald Trump have received some of the smallest totals from Wall Street.

Sanders, who has blamed the financial crisis on Wall Street and has promised to break up big banks, raised $26,650 from bank employees since launching his bid, a tiny fraction of the $96 million he has raised from all sources.

Trump, a billionaire businessman who is self-funding his campaign, raised only $1,566 from employees of banks. Most of Trump's fundraising has come in the form of selling merchandise on his website.



(Reporting by Ginger Gibson; Editing by Richard Valdmanis and Jonathan Oatis)

This article was funded in part by SAP. It was independently created by the Reuters editorial staff. SAP had no editorial involvement in its creation or production.

 

Now let's hear how you support Rubio or any other Republican.