Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016

The following words were actually spoken last week by Jeb Bush’s non-campaign spokesperson: “Gov. Bush is actively exploring a run. He has not made a final decision.”

Every grownup in America knows this is a lie.

The voters know Jeb has already decided to run for the White House in 2016. Campaign donors know he’s running. And the entire busload of other Republican presidential candidates knows he’s running.

Two campaign-finance watchdog organizations, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, want the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the “charade” of Bush’s non-campaign. They say it’s merely a weasel move that allows him to rake in unlimited, and mostly unregulated, donations.

That’s absolutely true. It’s an epic weasel move, though probably legal.

By pretending he hasn’t made up his mind, Jeb can personally go out and raise many millions of dollars for his super political action committee, loftily named “Right to Rise.”

The funds taken will eventually be used for his TV and digital advertising, once the fake non-campaign becomes an acknowledged one.

Fittingly, the logo of the Right to Rise SuperPAC features an open hand reaching upward. This might as well be Jeb’s hand, waiting to be stuffed with money.

Right to Rise was on pace to raise $100 million by the end of May, an obscene sum that dwarfs what the SuperPACs of other GOP hopefuls have collected.

Several of the contenders have formally announced their candidacies, and others will soon.

The Politico website reports that Jeb is holding off until mid-June before making it official. Meanwhile, he has a campaign manager, press aides and a vast network of experienced fund raisers.

Think of the stressful jobs they’ve got, running a non-campaign at full speed.

Part of your time is spent telling the media that Jeb really truly hasn’t made a decision. Imagine trying to keep a straight face while you say that.

Then the rest of your day is spent reassuring billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson that Jeb is totally, deeply, profoundly committed to winning the presidency — so please don’t write any more checks to Marco Rubio.

The reason for maintaining the public lie about Jeb’s non-decision can be traced to federal campaign laws, which were written as a template for high-stakes political weaseling and then expanded into a free-for-all by the current Supreme Court.

As long as Jeb doesn’t declare himself a candidate for federal office, he can jet all over the country soliciting unlimited riches for Right to Rise.

Once he officially throws his golf cap in the ring, however, the donations he requests for the SuperPAC would be capped. He and his staff would also be banned (on paper) from strategizing with his pals who run Right to Rise, because SuperPACs are supposed to operate independently of individual campaign committees.

So, the longer Jeb postpones his announcement, the larger the war chest he can accumulate and the more control he can exert over the organization that will bankroll his inevitable candidacy.

Meanwhile, he’s free to behave like a legitimate candidate. He can swoop into primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, shake hands, pose for pictures, smooch babies, bash Obama, suck up to Fox News, and even pull a Romney-style flip-flop when asked about the Iraq war.

All this while insisting he’s not running for the White House — he’s just “actively exploring,” a phrase more suitable to a prostate exam.

Sometimes Jeb hasn’t made it easy for his non-campaign staff to keep up the act.

During a recent non-campaign stop in Nevada, he actually let slip the forbidden words: “I am running for president in 2016.”

Then, in a rather unsmooth way, he scrambled to say, “If I run….”

The fundraising benefits of perpetuating this farce will at some fast-approaching time be outweighed by the risks. Voters who aren’t yet sold on Jeb might start to feel that he’s insulting their intelligence.

Another danger is that he appears at ease in the role of wry deceiver. People prefer straight-talking candidates, or at least candidates who do a good impression of straight talking.

After stumbling so badly on the subject of Iraq, Jeb can’t afford to look either indecisive or evasive.

Nobody believed Hillary Clinton for all those months while she denied that she’d made up her mind to run. Nobody believes Jeb now.

He’s probably raised more money than all the other GOP candidates put together, but he might need every penny to buy back some credibility.

(Carl Hiaasen is a columnist for The Miami Herald. Readers may write to him at: 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Florida, 33132.)

Photo: imrimages via Flickr

  • The lucky one

    “Voters who aren’t yet sold on Jeb might start to feel that he’s insulting their intelligence.” It would be impossible to insult the intelligence of someone who believes that any of the Bushs have any credibility whatsoever.

  • charleo1

    It occurs to me, if one starts out their efforts to become President with an obvious lie. What might we expect from such a man if he achieved his goal? That might be a logical way of looking at things. But in politics there is always a lot of winking, and nodding going on. An accepted amount of dishonesty, deceit, underhanded weaseling. And lately, just a shameful amount of open groveling to big money. Even as the politicians taking money from these billionaire hedge funds, and banks too big to fail, and they all do. Spout a populous economic platform about taking on Wall Street bullies, promise better wages, investing in Middle Class jobs, or “saving,” Social Security, and Medicare. It’s interesting no one in the press ever asks them how they propose to pay for it, and cut taxes for the wealthy interests that are investing millions in their campaigns. A lot of winking, and nodding going on there too. Politically speaking, it’s why saying cutting taxes for the rich trickled right on down to the poor, and magically-eventually, floated their boats too! Has worked so well in accounting for the Party interested in only serving the rich, being put into, and kept in power, largely with the support of the lower Middle Class blue collar workers they have been screwing for years. Because after a while with all this winking, and nodding going on, where no one is ever pressed to get specific about anything important. It gets very hard to discern when the winks are covering up harmless political weaseling, or huge whoppers designed to eventually impoverish an entire class of Americans, and rig the economy in favor of a small minority of very rich patrons. Yes, obviously I’m taking enormous sums of money from people who have nothing in common with you. Don’t know anything about your concerns, interests, and struggles. Might as well live on Mars, in fact. But, I’m with you. Feel your pain, come from the same place. And will fight for your best interests. Wink, wink, nod, nod.

    • mike

      Talk about a credibility problem just look at Hillary.
      Her numbers with Independent Women is now upside down. Last year 60% had a favorable opinion but now that is down to 44%, Her unfavorable has jumped from 33% to 48%. 57% to 63% of Independents find her not trustworthy or honest.

      Is she really going to relaunch her run for president on the 13th of June??
      The left has a real problem with a ONE candidate field with far to many imperfections.

      • charleo1

        What was Jeb’s numbers with Independent women last year? What are they now? What are any Right Winger’s numbers with women? Young women, poor women, women with children, women in general? Yes, I think Bush has huge credibility problems that tend to get worse when he appears in public.

        • mike

          More asinine statements from you.
          You have only one candidate running, Hillary. Jeb wasn’t even on the radar last year at this time, Hillary was. Last year you lefties couldn’t talk enough about the coronation of Hillary. So when you see her numbers falling because of missteps and lies, you should be concerned.
          Hillary’s numbers have dropped from last year, 60% favorable to 44% favorable. Unfavorable went up from 33% to 48%.
          What is so comical about you and your asinine comment on pay, is that Hillary and Obama weren’t/aren’t paying women the same wages as males. Don’t forget that ridiculous War On Women fell on deaf ears last November.
          You really are a joke.

          • charleo1

            We’ll see who’s laughing next fall bozo. Your guys got zero Pal.

          • mike

            Poor little Charlize,, doesn’t like the facts!!! Poor little girlie boy.
            Enjoying the good laugh at your expense.

          • charleo1

            So, here’s the GOP message. We don’t know what to do. Have been doing absolutely nothing. And would like the opportunity to do a whole lot more! And you’re laughing at me? You also got nothing, Pal.

          • mike

            You certainly are making my day. Thanks, Charlize.

      • Independent1

        Let’s see, you’re clearly quoting totally worthless numbers. Not only are we far too early to be making any assessments, we’re making assessments when the majority of voters really don’t care yet. So they’re making responses to idiot polls off the tops of their head without really thinking and having anything to compare or really care about.

        Not to mention that these idiot numbers you’re quoting are after months of the GOP spewing 24/7 lies, about pretend scandals and distortions of reality about Bill and Hillary.

        If you actually give any credibility to those numbers you just quoted – you’re even more of an idiot than I’ve believed you are!!!!

        • mike

          Worthless!! Really?
          Keep that head in the sand.

          Here’s why you should be concerned by what you call “worthless numbers”. Her falling numbers are forcing her to relaunch her run for presidency on June 13th.
          On Monday, a group of journalists gathered at the Washington DC offices of the Los Angeles Times for a two-hour meeting to complain about the secrecy of the Hillary campaign.The 17 journalists included staff from outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, Time and McClatchy. She will not get a pass that was given to Obama.

          A new Washington Post-ABC News Poll, 41 per cent of Americans say she is honest and trustworthy, compared with 52 per cent who say she is not – a 22-point swing in the past year.

          The polling appears to reveal damage to Mrs Clinton’s reputation caused by revelations of the extent of international fundraising by the Clinton Foundation, and her apparently secretive decision to use a personal email server while serving as secretary of state.

          If you don’t think you need not concern about Hillary, then you are a bigger idiot than I already know. I still love your statement that “Bush left the WH because he knew of the attack and wanted to be in a safe place.”
          You really are an imbecile.

          • Independent1

            More total hogwash!! It’s 6-7 months at least before anyone’s opinions matter a hill of beans; before the beginning of the primaries. Hillary supposedly restarting her campaigns got nothing to do with polls, it’s all about giving her another opportunity to be in the spotlight and to work at garnering more campaign dollars. Look at Jeb Bush, despite the fact that he knows refusing to actually get into the race is costing him in the polls, he’s continuing to let that happen just so he can keep stuffing campaign donations into his eventual campaign war chest; BECAUSE HE KNOWS PUBLIC OPINION CAN BE REVERSED IN A HEARTBEAT!! All it takes is money to run the right political ads and counter the negative BS being spewed about him – and to pour more negatives on his opposition.

            Your post proves you’re absolutely clueless to the reality in politics!! These early polls are nothing more than wasted time and their only value is to create situations that dumbcoffs like you can make more idiots of yourselves!!!

          • mike

            Thanks for another good laugh.
            Being Clueless is all yours.

          • Independent1

            And if you still don’t believe my last post, let me remind you of something: One president managed to turn more than a 70% approval rating and a landslide election win, into the worst 2nd term approval rating of any president since polls have been taken of around 35% in his 2nd term – in about as much time in office as we have between now and the 2016 election. His name was Ronald Reagan.

          • mike

            Another inane post!!! You can’t even get the approval ratings right. Reagan’s lowest was in his First Term Jan, 1983. WSJ, Gallup, Pew. He left office at a 63% approval. His average for his 2nd term was 55.3%. Just more of your uninformed and off the cuff remarks, that were wrong again. Just another example showing how little credibility you have when it comes to politics.
            Keep the silliness coming, it makes my day.

          • Independent1

            More lies!! In the early part of 1982 Reagan’s approval rating was in some polls at 35% becuase he had done nothing to slow down the oil embargo created recession he inherited which had allowed the prime rate and mortgage rates to exceed 16% and the unemployment rate had hit 10.8% all because of Reagan DOING NOTHING!!! It wasn’t until he finally determined to propose cutting taxes to help spur the economy, which was really the wrong thing to do that the economy started to turn around.

            That’s why there were only 4 million jobs created in his 1st term after more than 10 million had been created in Carter’s 4 years. If you really look at economic performance, the guy you GOP idiots love to downgrade, Carter, has far better economic numbers related to GDP, Job creating and our debt, than Reagan ever created!! America’s worstl president ever!!! Ronald Reagan, which only proves how ignorant the American electorate is to reality!!

            Given that Reagan presided over our nation during what should have been one of America’s biggest boom times, the development and creation of the personal computer and the establishment of virtually all the players that are involvolved in today’s technology sector – rather than being an economic whiz, Reagan was and economic FLUNKY!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • mike

            No lies from me just the inconvenient truth showing your ignorance and lack of knowledge. You said “worst second term approval rating” but I see you have had to revise it to first term glitch in the numbers, showing you misspoke again. One more time Reagan’s First term averaged 50.3%, 2nd term was 55.3%-far from the 35% you claimed. He left office at 63%. PS. there was never a 35% second term approval rating.





            HOW MANY MORE DO YOU WANT?? These pretty much show your lack of facts!!!

          • Independent1

            “Second term” was my slip, I had meant “2nd year” approval rating. So sue me!!

            If you had an ounce of brains you would have realized it was a typo on my part given I said that Reagan had turned a 70% approval rating to half that in about the time left between now and the 2016 election.

            You can’t even catch when someone makes a typo!!!!!

          • mike

            Here is what you said:”into the worst 2nd term approval rating of any president since polls have been taken of around 35% in his 2nd term”-

            You said “2nd term” twice.
            No typo!!
            Your dishonesty continues.

          • Independent1

            Like a typical GOP lover you have absolutely “no common sense”. Why would I have been intentionally talking about Reagan’s 2nd term numbers when I was clearly trying to make the point that your idiot statement about Hilary’s current poll number were worthless??? Why would I have been using Reagan’s 2nd Term numbers to make the point that with it being 16 months plus to the 2016 election, that poll numbers today are meaningless, by comparing Reagan’s election numbers to his numbers 4 years away??? Get real – you are clearly dumber than any other poster on the NM!!! Because you can’t even rationalize anything!!!!!!!!

          • mike

            Keep trying to defend your defenseless remarks.
            You said “2nd term” twice, no typo. Just like you said, Bush left WH on 9/11 knowing an attack was going to happen and wanted to be in a safe place”, you showed your delusion.
            As to polls, they are far from “meaningless.” In your eyes you want them to mean nothing, but unfortunately for the left all you have is the old girl, whose numbers keep dropping. She is untrustworthy and lacking honesty. Rasmussen polls show 57% of democrats want a younger person running on the left.

          • Independent1

            When you start thinking Reagan was such an economic whiz, take a look at these two charts on our economies and see that rather than being a Whiz, Reagan was a flunkie!!

            He falls far behind Roosevelt, Johnson and Carter – and even behind Clinton, Kennedy and Nixon in the first chart. And his 2nd term is even behind the five years under Kennedy/Johnson, and even the five year growth periods under Clinton and Ford/Carter.

            And if you read this article from the Daily Kos, which I know you will try to discredit, but let’s see you do it, shows just how disastrous the GOP has been over the years to America:

            Which party is best for the economy? It’s not even close


          • mike

            Keep blathering.
            Hillary’s numbers have dropped substantially in polls, is untrustworthy, is dishonest, has been caught in lies, refuses to answer questions of the press and the American people. But, in your eyes means nothing. Stay in La La Land!!
            Keep trying that dailykos thing, if fits you.
            When you take average annual growth rate of real capital US GDP, Reagan out performs Clinton. OOPS!!!

          • Independent1

            More of your BS!! Even Obama, in the face of 24/7 GOP obstructionism has outperformed Reagan in every economic measure. Jobs, Growth and Investing. And tell your BS to those 8 million more Americans who got jobs during Clinton’s 8 years when almost 24 million jobs were created versus a paltry 16 million under Reagan.

            From Forbes:

            Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing


          • mike

            Really!!! Average Annual Growth Rate Of Real Capital US GDP Reagan out performed Clinton.


            What we do know for a fact is the jobs produced under Obama were almost entirely low paying jobs not the middle paying jobs under past presidents.



            Back to real time. Hillary’s numbers have dropped substantially in polls, is untrustworthy, is dishonest, has been caught in lies, refuses to answer questions of the press and the American people. But, in your eyes means nothing. Stay in La La Land!!

          • Independent1

            You’re not really clueless enough to believe that I would accept some garbage posted to Wikipedia by some Heritage foundation wingnut do you?? Only some right winger would waste their time posting garbage about Reagan on Wikipedia,

            And Reagan’s the reason for all these low paying jobs companies are offering workers today. Reagan’s the one who taught CEOs and entrepreneurs around the world that the only important thing for company owners to worry about was what stockholders think – to hell with workers. Reagan’s the one who hoodwinked the Air Traffic Controllers into striking (pretending he was going to negotiate with them) just so he could summarily fire every union member and then he appointed two union haters to the NLRB which started the demise of unions – and started companies into dropping virtually all the benefits that unions had fought so many years to build up for the members like penison, 401K matches, sick leave, decent vacations and more!!

            So go take your idiot post and cram it YOU KNOW WHERE!!!!

          • mike

            My God I love your imbecilic posts.

            Clueless is you believing only in dailykos, I could/have produced legitimate news and financial media who would be drummed out of the business with false and misleading data, but only in your eyes are they lying. Pathetic.

            Your statement:
            “Reagan’s the one who taught CEOs and entrepreneurs around the world that the only important thing for company owners to worry about was what stockholders think – to hell with workers.” What an imbecilic statement.
            Back to real time. Hillary’s numbers have dropped substantially in polls, is untrustworthy, is dishonest, has been caught in lies, refuses to answer questions of the press and the American people. But, in your eyes means nothing. Stay in La La Land!!

            Now we are seeing polls of Hillary dropping even with democrats as to her viability. Only 57% of democrats today support Hillary compared to 63% last month. Only you would think polls mean nothing at this time. The more they drop the more other candidates will enter the field, pulling her further to the left which will make the general election much harder for her. Heck, 41% a significant minority of democrats believe the Clinton’s were “selling influence to foreign contributors”.

            Keep that head in the sand.

          • Independent1

            More nonsensical rantings!! Reagan never accomplished anything meaningful in his 8 years which wasn’t something contrived by you rightwingers.

            And sadly, rightwingers have a propensity for lying!! And for creating fabricated figures for making a point they want to make even when they know they are blatantly lying!!


            Lies, Damn Lies, And The Heritage Foundation

            December 19, 2011 3:15 pm ET — Jamison Foser

            If you’ve paid any attention to congressional Republicans over the past several years, you may have noticed that they have a remarkable tendency to be wildly, almost unbelievably wrong. Not just wrong in their judgment — wrong about basic facts. One reason they’re so wrong so often is, of course, that they just don’t care about being right: When a United States senator like Tom Coburn (R-OK) has no idea what the federal government’s annual budget is, that’s a pretty good indication that factual accuracy just isn’t a priority. But another factor is that the conservative movement’s most respected and influential think tank is fundamentally dishonest.

            The Heritage Foundation describes itself as “a research and educational institution—a think tank” and boasts of “performing timely, accurate research on key policy issues and effectively marketing these findings to our primary audiences: members of Congress, key congressional staff members, policymakers in the executive branch, the nation’s news media, and the academic and policy communities.”

            But, without even getting into its thoroughly absurd economic projections, Heritage is comically dishonest. It credits tax cuts with economic growth that preceded them. It claims a reduction in tax rates isn’t a tax cut. It suggests nobody claimed the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves, when in fact both the Bush administration and Heritage itself made exactly that claim. Again and again, Heritage crosses the line between “wrong” and “dishonest.”


          • mike

            No, the nonsense is all yours. I have used the Heritage Foundation very little, I have used many very good business and academic sources.

            Your statement:
            “Reagan’s the one who taught CEOs and entrepreneurs around the world that the only important thing for company owners to worry about was what stockholders think – to hell with workers.” What an imbecilic statement.

            Back to real time. Hillary’s numbers have dropped substantially in polls, is untrustworthy, is dishonest, has been caught in lies, refuses to answer questions of the press and the American people. But, in your eyes means nothing. Stay in La La Land!!

            Now we are seeing polls of Hillary dropping even with democrats as to her viability. Only 57% of democrats today support Hillary compared to 63% last month. Only you would think polls mean nothing at this time. The more they drop the more other candidates will enter the field, pulling her further to the left which will make the general election much harder for her. Heck, 41% a significant minority of democrats believe the Clinton’s were “selling influence to foreign contributors”.

            Keep that head in the sand.

          • Independent1

            And this from the Heritage Foundation. If the Heritage Foundation will create their own numbers in an effort to make a bad situation in Kansas look good, why not create numbers for Wikipedia to make a flunky president look good????????

            Spend a minute and take a look at how the Heritage Foundation FABRICATED NUMBERS JUST TO MAKE THE DISASTER IN KANSAS LOOK SUPPOSEDLY GOOD!!!

            Busted! Heritage Foundation economist can only defend Kansas tax cuts by fabricating data

            How do you make the case that Sam Brownback has been good for Kansas?

            If you are Stephen Moore, the “chief economist” for the Heritage Foundation, you fake the data.

            What’s going on in Kansas is beginning to look a lot like proof that Republican magical thinking about economics has at last run out of fairy dust to cloak itself in.

            Yael T. Abouhalkah is an editorial writer for the Kansas City Star. While researching a piece on the Kansas economy, he couldn’t help but notice that the facts he was turning up were at odds with the “facts” reported in a pro-Brownback piece written by Moore and published the Star earlier this month.

            Moore’s column argued that Kansas needed to give Brownback’s regime more time to work its wonders, because “the national data tell us” that over the last 20 years

            the nine states without an income tax have had double the population growth and more than double the income growth of states with very high income taxes. These results are statistically significant, which means it is very unlikely they happened by chance. This does not mean all states that cut taxes have growth or that all states with high taxes don’t have growth. It means there is a strong propensity for low-tax and tax-cutting states to grow. Period. This is a problem for the left because places such as New York, Massachusetts, Illinois and California that have been following Krugman’s (and President Barack Obama’s) economic strategy are getting clobbered by tax-cutting states.

            OK. Some of you have already noticed that here we have a “chief economist” abusing the concept of “statistical significance” in a way that would embarrass a first year student of the subject.

            But let’s move on to what Moore said next:

            No-income-tax Texas gained 1 million jobs over the last five years; California, with its 13 percent tax rate, managed to lose jobs. Oops. Florida gained hundreds of thousands of jobs while New York lost jobs. Oops.

            Abouhalkah found FOUR errors in that brief passage.

            No. 1: Moore’s data isn’t from “the last five years”. When challenged by The Star he admitted it was from December 2007 to December 2012. Which is a deliberate deception. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data that Moore was relying on is updated Every. Single. Month. So there is no reason to use 18-month-old data. If Moore honestly wanted to look at the “the last five years” he could have presented the numbers from mid-2009 to mid-2014.

            No. 2: even within his cherry-picked dates, Moore lied about the numbers. Texas did not gain 1 million jobs in that 2007-2012 period. The correct figure was a gain of 497,400 jobs.

            No. 3: Florida did not add hundreds of thousands of jobs in that span. It lost 461,500 jobs.

            No. 4: New York, which has one of the highest income tax rates, did not lose jobs during that time. It gained 75,900 jobs.

            Abouhalkah noted a 5th oddity as well:

            California since December 2012 — when Moore stopped measuring employment growth — has added 541,000 jobs, which is more than Texas’ 523,400. So, high taxes are good?

            At this point one must ask: how is it that Stephen Moore still has a job?

            More importantly, let’s see what Abouhalkah’s own research turned up. From his July 18 piece – the one he was researching when he realized how dishonest Moore’s piece was:

            Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and his advisers want to create an alternate reality when it comes to job growth in the state.

            They keep throwing out misleading numbers to the public while trying to cloud Kansas’ mediocre jobs picture.

            Consider what happened earlier this week, after Democrat Paul Davis gained national attention when more than 100 current and former Kansas GOP officials endorsed his efforts to defeat Brownback this fall.

            The Brownback campaign shot back with the oft-repeated claim that the Republican governor has created plenty of private sector jobs since he took office in January 2011. It was the latest effort to promote large tax cuts he signed as a way to re-energize the state’s economy.

            The facts are far more sobering for the governor.

            On Friday, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics released the latest employment figures for all 50 states — the same ones the Brownback administration uses repeatedly for its “we’re getting better” press releases.

            Overall, the number of private sector jobs added since 2011 in Kansas crept up to 55,100. However, that statistic loses a lot of shine once you factor in the 8,300 jobs lost in local and state government ranks since 2011. Those are people who may no longer have steady income to pay the rent, buy food, pay taxes and contribute to the Kansas economy.

            Fact is, Kansas has actually gained only 46,800 total jobs since early 2011

          • mike

            Same old diarrhea of the mouth coming from you.

          • atc333

            Considering that she now has some viable competition on the Democratic front, the reduction in favorably is expected. Sanders has generated a lot of interest, simply because he has called the GOP out on its failed economic theories, which have done more to damage this nation’s economic strength than any terrorist attack. Income inequality, wealth inequality, the shrinking middle class, and the expanding numbers of Americans living in poverty will destroy this nation, and all the GOP can do is give us the 12 plus wannabees that want to do it all over again, more tax cuts for job creators, more spending cuts on essential safety nets, schools, education,and infrastructure, block minimum wage increases, and block cuts in student loan reforms, to name just a few.

            Face it, The GOP is a failed party with a failed economic agenda, which, because of Reagan’s tax cuts, all continued by Bush I, and II, cost the US over 13 Trillion dollars in lost tax revenues, but paid for the top 2% wealth accumulations. Deduct that lost tax revenue from our current Federal debt, and you will discover that the Federal Deficit would now be at the same level it was before Reagan took office.

            That fact alone pretty much says it all.

            I am afraid your head is the one in the sand my friend.

          • mike

            Her poll numbers starting dropping after her press conference debacle and continued to drop. She is untrustworthy and dishonest the polls are showing.
            They were dropping long before Sanders entered the race.
            Keep living in the past and supporting a failed president.
            No, it is you who don’t know the facts and has head buried up his a$$.

          • atc333

            Instead of bolstering your ego by throwing out insults, why don’t you simply check out the facts, and see what GOP failed polices have done to America over the past 45 years. It is all available for anyone who has the intellectual curiosity to go to the sources, rather than rely upon what Faux news, Limbaugh, Hannity, and others tell you.

            Here is another fact for you to mull over. GOP Administrations’ job creation during the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II years was less than half that of Democratic Administrations.

            So, If GOP Economic Theory is so successful, then why wasn’t the Bush II Administration the most effective in creating new jobs,increasing Federal tax revenues, reducing the Federal Deficits, and increasing the wealth of Middle and working class Americans, much less create the Bush II Almost Great Depression?

            Educate yourself.

          • mike

            Look dipsh$t the conversation is on Hillary’s poll numbers.These are your words, “Considering that she now has some viable competition on the Democratic front, the reduction in favorably is expected. Sanders has generated a lot of interest…..” Those are your words, which are incorrect. The poll numbers were falling long before he entered.
            What is hilarious is that you really believe the economy is doing great, what a laugh.
            The one lacking an education is you.

          • atc333

            Compared to what Bush II, and the GOP lemmings in the House and Senate accomplished with the Bush II Great Recession, the economy is doing well, despite 6 years of GOP block and stall, including many programs proposed that were previously supported by the GOP before they were opposed by the GOP.

            Despite your joy in her current poll numbers, they are still better than any of your GOP Wannabees.when she is compared directly to any of them. If the current crop is the best the GOP can come up with, then 2016 will be a very good year for the Democrats, for the reasons mentioned above. As Sanders is pointing out to the public, GOP economic policy is a failure for most Americans, Kansas and Brownback are proof. Look at that states decline. The 10 poorest states are proof, as they are all Red states, 13 Trillion dollars in lost revenues added to the Federal Debt as a direct result of GOP continued application of Reganomics over the past 45 years is proof, massive redistribution of over 40% of all of America’s wealth to the top 2% as a result of GOP policies is proof, the shrinking Middle class is proof, The expanding numbers of Americans living in poverty is proof, 6 Trillion dollars added by Bush II alone to the Federal Deficit during his Administration is proof, The GOP’s failure to come up with tax reforms which treat all us corporations equally is poof, the failure to increase the minimum wage is proof, and the list keeps going on and on, and yet is seems all you are really capable of doing is insulting people?

            Simply pathetic, but then you obviously must feel much better about yourself after each insult you pass out, .as you certainly do keep it up. .

          • mike

            Just to show how asinine you are, here is one from one week later in Forbes.


      • atc333

        Imperfections? Look at the GOP mob now running. You want real imperfections, there they are, laid out for the world to see.

    • itsfun

      After almost 7 years of Obama lying to us, Jeb would just fit into Obama’s administration.

      • charleo1

        Same old Winger meme. Bill Clinton lied, Barack Obama lied. Go back a few decades, and the Republicans were accusing Roosevelt, and Truman of lying. It is interesting what Righties care about. George Bush didn’t lie. Just got “bad intel,” and as a result, we lost over 4000 troops, and 30,000 were wounded. Barack Obama got an insurance rule wrong, and 9 million uninsured Americans, and counting, got a regular doctor. What awful lies are you talking about?

        • itsfun

          Bill Clinton: I did not have sex with that woman.
          Barack Hussian Obama: If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance company you can keep your insurance company.
          Barack Obama: We are not cutting medicare.
          My last 3 reports from medicare clearly state I am paying more out of pocket because of cuts to medicare payments.

          • Independent1

            And there you go with more of your stupidity!!

            Obama did not lie about keeping your doctor – he unfortunately assumed that CEOs in the health industry would keep their word. What he said was not a lie, it was what the health insurance industry should have supported. The fact they did not, was because health insurance CEOs lied by saying they would support the ACA legislation that required the grandfathering of their policies.

            The 716B WAS NOT A CUT, it’s SAVINGS that are being realized by making improvements to Medicare that are being used to support the subsidies and other improvements under ACA!!!

            And those cuts to Medicare you’re talking about have nothing to do with Obama, they’re all the results OF THE GOP OVER THE PAST 6 YEARS DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO TRY AND DESTROY MEDICARE!!!! PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS!!!!


          • charleo1

            If you think about it, those are pretty tame complaints for two Presidents who have handled the toughest job in the World for a combined 14 years now. If you want to know why your prescription co-pays went up, ask Congress. Who made it illegal for the gov. to bargain with drug cos. for a better price.

          • itsfun

            You asked for lies, how many more do you want? There is nothing tame about taking a persons doctor away from them or their health insurance. If I want to know why my costs went up, I should ask Congress? Obama is the one that lied about obamacare and is the one that said Medicare benefits would not change. Medicare benefits were reduced to help pay for obamacare. Have you seen the proposed health insurance increases for obamacare this coming year? Double digit increases have been asked for, all the way up to 26% in state.

      • atc333

        How about a list, a real list of Obama’s lies, not a make believe cobbled together list of campaign promises he could not keep because of GOP Right Wing intransigence? Compared to the Bush II disasters, the mistake of “you can keep your own plan or doctors is at worst, minimal.

        Lets see you get down to some real red meat lies,

  • Tim Corbett

    his supporters are wasting a lot of money a Bush will never be elected again they are thieves

    • 1standlastword

      Actually, the money won’t be wasted. He is raising money for the party that works for the corporate donors who want to buy our “not-so” representative democracy.

      If he decides not to run or is casted out into outer darkness where there is only weeping and gnashing of teeth (Hell)–where he and his kind belong–that money goes into the GOP coffer for the candidate they run against the democrats and some part of it can and will be used for many other nefarious machinations that appeal to the Greedy Old Pricks (GOP)

  • atc333

    Jeb! is certainly modeling his march to the Presidency on Bush II’s March to War If he will lie just to raise money, then he will lie about anything.
    Voters of America, you have been warned. Proceed at your own risk.

  • kentallard

    I loathe Bush. His governorship was an insult to thinking, compassionate people, the hypocrisy of his family is the stuff of legend, his brother presided over a lunatic, criminal war, bankrupt the country, and diminished the United States as no other president ever has. Jeb promises more of the same.

    There are an infinite number of possibilities to criticize Jeb Bush. I’m not sure this article features one of them.

    It is hypocritical to pretend not to be running, but since when has hypocrisy stopped a Bush (or any national politician)? My surprise is that every candidate isn’t running the same con. If the system, as constituted, allows a candidate to accumulate vast sums to use in an election by simply waiting to commit, why wouldn’t the standard narcissistic personality that runs for president take advantage of it? The conservatives have worked for decades to get a Supreme Court that would let them count money as speech so why not take advantage of it?

    I know this is a cynical point of view, but they’ve set the rules, his sociopathic advisors figured out a way to game it, and Bush is accumulating the cash necessary to buy an election. Repulsive, but within the rules. As the Bush v Gore debacle proved, thugs with money will always beat somebody trying to be fair and noble – especially when the final arbiters are soul dead ideologues.

    I predict that, in the next election cycle, every serious candidate does the same thing.

    This Land is Your Land

    • Kurt CPI

      You got that right – all of it. No one ever accused a Bush of being ethical.

      • itsfun

        or Hillary and Bill Clinton

        • Independent1

          And you just keep pulling these idiot comments out of your butt. No one has been able to make one of their fake scandals stick on the Clintons. And all you know how to do is parrot their idiocy!!

    • Dominick Vila

      Fear not, the same people w criticize the Clintons because they have become rich giving speeches to people willing to pay large amounts of money to hear their opinions, are likely to be the same ones who will excuse Jeb collecting $100M – without declaring his candidacy to avoid disclosing the names of donors and how much they donated. I guess it all depends how the money I earned. If people make it because of their hard labor or intellect, it is evil. If they make it scheming, it is just peachy.

  • FT66

    Jeb Bush CAN’T BE TRUSTED and yet we are hearing republicans screaming about Hillary.

    • itsfun

      Neither one can be trusted. But if having money is wrong, then Hillary is as wrong as Jeb. Seems to me, we should have more than 2 families in this country to be President. I don’t want Jeb or Hillary.

      • FT66

        According to my own judgment, I would give Hillary the benefit of doubts as there is no concrete evidence presented so far. Now, Jeb is proving in the eyes of every voter how untrustworthy he is. He deserves a red card right away from all voters.

        • itsfun

          It came out today how the Canadian pipeline people gave huge donations to the Clinton foundation. Another foreign interest using the Clintons to buy future favors. I have no faith in either of them. Hillary talks about helping the middle class when she is in the top 1% of the 1%. These rich people only help when there is a huge tax credit for helping. I don’t know if it is true or not, but I also read where only 15% of the Clinton foundation money actually goes to charity.

          • FT66

            What kind of favors? Can you mention some? Only republicans are buying your narrative. Do you think they can pull her down? It is not going to happen. By the way, Clinton Foundation will continue whether Hillary wins or loses election. Donations will still flow to the Foundation.

          • itsfun

            If elected you can expect the pipeline to be built. That is the favor they want to buy.

          • Independent1

            More of your ignorant nonsense! You have no evidence to back up that garbage!!

          • Bob Eddy

            A pipeline that has absolutely no value to the American people and exposes us to the dangers and expense of the inevitable pipeline failure? I don’t think so. Do you have any evidence at all for this supposition?

          • Dominick Vila
          • Bob Eddy

            What the right wing can’t seem to comprehend is that the Clinton Foundation is a charity…a real charity…that money does not go to the Clinton’s. It does not fund their campaign while the money Bush is raising does nothing but fund his campaign…very indirectly, of course.

          • itsfun

            What about the report the Clinton Foundation spends only 15% on actual charity? What about the foreign donations that probably are for political favors?

          • Bob Eddy

            Interesting that I only found that 15% figure on right wing sites…Daily Caller, Fox “News”, etc. On further research, to no ones surprise I found it was not accurate. In fact if you take a little time to do some research you will find that the American Institute Of Philanthropy shows a much greater amount of money goes to helping people and explains why the incorrect 15% figure bouncing around the right wing echo chamber is so far off the facts. As far as what you think about foreign donation that are “probably” for political favors — what you “think” is totally irrelevant to me (and it should be to you as well) if you have no evidence to support it.

          • atc333

            Lets see, these contributions to the Foundation can’t be used for personal needs, they can’t be used for campaign expenses, so at best, we have contributions for charitable purposes which some of you claim will “influence Clinton to grant favors to foreign governments should she be elected.

            Lets see now, which donors have the best chance of seeing their major capital contributions successfully influence their chosen candidates actions on their behalf, should he or she be elected?

            Clinton, who cannot use the money for political purposes, or every GOP candidate running receiving massive contributions which can be used for seeking public office, and once elected, would carry the psychological burden of “owning their contributor”, and consciously, or unconsciously then reciprocating the favors?

            We know just which candidates future actions are at risk, and it is not Clinton’s.

        • Whatmeworry

          Deaf dumb and blind I take it

        • Deaf dumb and blind I take it I am

      • Dominick Vila

        The issue being discussed is not the fact that Jeb is a member of a wealthy family, but that he has collected $100M without declaring his candidacy to avoid complying with existing campaign laws.

        • itsfun

          right you are.

          • Are you calling ME a moron???

          • itsfun

            Nope, I was replying to Dom and agreeing with him.

          • Ok, because im not a moron

          • itsfun

            I’m sure you’re not.

        • Insinnergy

          Alas, it’s not illegal though. Probably should be.

        • Whatmeworry


      • Insinnergy

        Money is a serious problem.
        It’s needs to be federally supplied, capped for both party operations, and TV and radio advertising, and other third party entities who advertise on behalf of a candidate need caps on their election spending as well.

        Something like:
        $50 million for each party for Party operations (Not media advertising).
        $30 million for each party for TV, Internet and Radio Advertising only.
        $40 million for each Presidential Candidate for media.
        $5 million for each Senatorial Candidate for media.
        $2 million cap on total Election spending for any third party. i.e. Koch industries: $2 mill cap. George Soros: $2 mill cap. etc etc (Or just make it illegal)

        On top of that, the “Election Period” needs to be legally restricted to 3 months before the elections… not 2 years… or “any time you feel like it”.

        Imagine the difference to both US governmental efficiency and the public.

        Firstly people would only be advertised at for 3 months tops (outside of that would be illegal), and parties would have to be very careful where and how often they advertised because they have limited funds. No more 360 degree 24/7 bombardment…. no more endless attack ads. No more winning through sheer spending on TV time. People might actually begin to vote more if they aren’t continually slammed with political messages and attack adverts.

        Secondly most politicians say they spend 6 hours of every day on the phone soliciting money. Lets be charitable and assume they all work 12 hour days… that’s 50% of every day on not doing their jobs. For others it’s probably 80%. For Presidential candidates it’s 100%… Look at Chris Christie… Look at Scott Walker… Look at Rand Paul… etc etc… its OVER A YEAR from the election and do you think they are doing anything for their constituents? They are totally focused on their presidential runs, and will be for the next 14 MONTHS. How is that a good deal for US politics or the people who voted them in?
        Limiting time to 3 months, and giving a set amount of money takes all that away. They can spend their whole day each day on their actual jobs. And only the final 4-5 months on preparing to be re-elected.

        The current system is crazy, inefficient, and not democratic.
        Ironic for people who trumpet their democracy to the rest of the world.

        • Whatmeworry

          Where were the Dem’s in 2008 when McCain only took the national $$$ and Barak took 10’s of millions from foreign govts

          • JPHALL

            Dems complained then also.

          • Not as bad as the crybaby repubs and tea party wienies when Barak won his second term

        • itsfun

          The amount of money spend on elections shows just how power and money hungry some people are. The parties spend millions more than can ever make in salaries. What does that tell us about the honesty and integrity of politicians and political parties. They are not spending that kind of money without the idea of making it back many times over. Just check out how much a politician is worth when they take office and then check on much they are worth after only one term. They make thousands of dollars just for speeches. Lets say company AA wants a bill passed to sell widgets. They go to a Senator and/or a Rep and ask them to speak for a fee of lets say $500. They tell the politician they wish they could pay $100,000 for the speech but without the widget bill getting passed they can’t pay that much. Guess what the widget bill get passed the politician gets $100,000 for his “speech” and its all legal.

          • Where were the Dem’s in 2016 when McCain only took the national $$$ and Barak took 10’s of millions from foreign govts

      • dtgraham

        Out of curiosity, who do you like in the Republican field? You’ve never told us.

        • itsfun

          Not sure yet. I do like the idea of a former Governor because they have the executive experience needed to oversee a huge organization such as our national government. I like the idea of a former US Senator because we need someone with foreign policy knowledge and experience. I really don’t want someone from the private sector just because of foreign policy in such a troubled world.
          On the Democrat side I also like the former governor of Maryland. He is a straight talker and I like that. My biggest problem with him, is he loves to tax and tax. He even wanted to tax rain water in Maryland.

  • ococoob

    The weasel should’ve heeded his mother’s thoughts, “We don’t need anymore Bush in the White House.”

  • angryspittle

    Jebby is as sleazy as the rest of the crime family. And he actually is dumber than his fucking dimwitted brother and that is a real feat.

    Oh, and Terry Schiavo! Never forget his sleazy pandering to the neanderthal element in the party.

  • Whatmeworry

    And yet ha y has done for 10monhs was OK?? The 2 groups wining aren’t campaign watch dogs but arms of the DNC

    • And yet ha y z d f z 2 has done for 10monhs was OK?? The 2 groups wining aren’t campaign watch dogs but arms of the DNC

    • Daniel Max Ketter

      What is ha y. Do you mean hay, like what horses munch on? You must have been absent from spelling class in your special ed, or read too many newspapers.

      God bless our labor organizations for their meritorious service to our country.

  • booker25

    Mean while Jeb continues to fall in the polls all the while he hasn’t even announce he is running yet, LOL!

  • Erica

    If these politicians are busy amassing millions from their donor “friends” are we, the little people, to expect them to have our best interest when we can’t pay them to ?

  • LEK56

    All those millions wasted… he’ll never win anything.