The chimp had primitive animal magnetism to the animals in his party. Jeb is entirely repellant on all fronts.

If they hadn't been such horrible presidents he may have had a shot at playing it off. Instead his brother was just one president ago and we've still not managed to clean up his mess yet!

He is running because his family sees power as a God given right to them.

Jebby obviously has no charisma either.

HOoooWeee



Jeb Bush’s audience during a town hall campaign stop, Thursday, Aug. 20, 2015, in Keene, N.H. Photo via AP Images


That's gotta burn.

this picture speaks volumes. No mistaking that body language. Hey Jebby, whatever you're selling, these women ain't buying.

"I'm glad they put us six rows back. The smell of BS must be overpowering up front."

Always on the lookout for anyone who looks as though they're enjoying life (God forbid!).

Jeb must be thinking: "thank goodness they don't know Neil like I do!"

....over the term "anchor babies" that he used. Chewed out several reporters.

Or wouldn't that be politically correct?

From yesterday's WaPo:


Former Governor Jeb Bush speaks to a crowd of New Hampshire voters at the Historical Society in Keen on Thursday, August 20, 2015. (Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

He just might lose his national advisory board position with the Hispanic Leadership Network, now that we see yet another glimpse into Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Jeb is so thoroughly off of his game that he's like a cockroach rolled over onto his back while the wild-haired orange cat plays 'spin the top'.

"Jeb is so thoroughly off of his game that he's like a cockroach rolled over onto his back while the wild-haired orange cat plays 'spin the top'."

The visualization is priceless!

Thanks for the laugh.

"a voter told Bush that his brother "won't even eat Bush beans"

Which is a surprise to such a person.

Wonder if The Donald knows about Plan Perot?

because as has now been once again but more widely exposed, Perot costing Bush I in 1992 is simply one of political histories longest lasting myths.

That's enough to do somebody some damage.

As for Plan Perot: Ross Perot was a spoiler , claimed he was threatened by Bushies.

To back it up. This is not a RW forum.

As for my data, it's what the election tabulated:

Normally, I don't use WikiPedia, but going from your posts, it's about your speed, ericson00.

My copy/paste isn't co-operating on my cheap tablet, but the third paragraph of analysis talks about Perot siphoning votes nearly equally from Clinton and Bush. So his effect was basically a wash.

Do you think Jebthro's operatives will threaten Trump's life?

There's good reason to think so. Ask the Hinckleys.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2407956&mesg_id=2409858

That has stood there for years because it has empirical data backing it up, unlike Octafish's claim.

Gee. What's next? I can't point out that Bill Clinton works in Wealth Management at UBS under Phil Gramm?

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

Would a picture help?



Sad to see longtime DUers castigated, etc, for posting, but I've come to expect it.

because no data/numbers, you know things that the "Climate Change is a Chinese Hoax" also eschews. It was a talking point used to weaken the Bill Clinton's presidency and promote conservative ideas. It was also used to delegitimize Clinton, just as born in Kenya was used against Obama.

Show some honour.

the Perot-myth is no different than "Obama was born in Kenya" in both its truthfulness content and uses-to delegitimize a Democratic president.

On Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:00 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Perot got 19 percent of the vote in 1992.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7097191

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Uses a rw talking point about Perot, gives no empirical data and ignores empirical data. Perot myth has been debunked, tho it was and is used against Democrats and liberalism

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:07 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Perot myth has been debunked
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alert makes no sense to me. There's...data right there? And no "right wing talking point"? What is life? What even?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So right a note explaining that you think it's wrong. Lots of people dispute things that are said on here. It's called conversation.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stop complaining about such innocuous posts. Sheesh.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sounds like the alerter has a sadz.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

That poster's been here less than a month, too, and exhibits a real love of history.

Weren't for Perot, there'd be no Clinton administration.

Wonder if the poster's also an expert on how if it weren't for the Aytatollah, there'd be no Reagan, Bush I or Bush II administrations?

Somehow, I think that's outside that poster's intellectual comfort zone.

Dont argue with me, argue with Rachel Maddow and her researchers who did a segment on this.

She's an expert. I don't know about you, randys1, but I was happy Bill Clinton got elected. He wasn't elected by a majority, but a plurality was good enough back then.

Gosh. I called him, "President Clinton" for eight years and supported him as a citizen and as a Democrat. My disagreements with Bill have more to do with matters where he acted more like a Republican, like restructuring welfare as we knew it to repealing Glass-Steagal. He's still demonstrating Buy Partisanship at UBS.

were just that; possibly. Also of note- Carter still blames him for being a spoiler for many of the same reason Bushies accuse Perot after they get confronted with empirical data; he "weakened" me. Anderson is pushing IRV, and its easier to push if more can be construed to be "spoilers." I agree with IRV, but the data still suggests Perot had a near minimal effect.

A better source would actually use exit polls and shows the one state Perot may have changed showed an exit poll margin difference within the MoE that it could've stayed the same, but either way, Clinton wins an electoral landslide.

Perot-elected-Clinton is no different than "I am not a scientist." Same dumb redneck data and math hating non-logic.

That's a low blow.

unless you are willing to admit "I'm sorry, I was wrong. Whether or not I like Bill and Hillary Clinton personally or policywise, it is NEVER ok to lie so blatantly against data and statistics, or to repeat a claim with little factual basis that was used to delegitimize a Democratic President who ended 12 years of GOP rule."

Lost History: Reagan-Bush Crime Syndicate

By Robert Parry

WASHINGTON -- It should be clear by now that for 12 years, from 1981-1993, the United States was governed by political leaders who merged the power of the state with criminality to a degree possibly unmatched in modern American history. That disturbing reality was underscored again this past month by an exhaustively researched series by Gary Webb in The San Jose Mercury-News.

Webb's three-part series, with supporting documentation, traced the "crack" epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities to massive shipments of cocaine smuggled by elements of the CIA-organized Nicaraguan contra army in the early-to-mid 1980s. Danilo Blandon Reyes, a former contra leader and drug dealer, testified during a recent cocaine trafficking trial in San Diego that the smuggling was given a green light by the late Enrique Bermudez, who commanded the FDN, the largest contra force and the one most closely associated with the CIA.

"There is a saying that the ends justify the means," Blandon said. "And that's what Mr. Bermudez told us in Honduras, OK. So we started raising money for the contra revolution." Though Blandon was offered as a U.S. government witness, the Justice Department first obtained a gag order that blocked defense attorneys from inquiring about the CIA's role in dealing dope to the Crips and Bloods and other inner-city gangs.

But a wealth of other evidence, collected by federal drug agents and congressional investigators during the 1980s, corroborated that the Reagan-Bush administrations knew about the drug trafficking and mounted a determined cover-up to protect the contras from exposure. Senior administration officials apparently shared Enrique Bermudez's situational ethics. After all, President Reagan had hailed the contras as the "moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers." They could not be unmasked as drug dealers.

Published stories about contra drug trafficking were also not new. On Dec. 20, 1985 -- more than a decade ago -- The Associated Press published a story by Brian Barger and me reporting that all major contra factions had joined the drug trade. "Nicaraguan rebels operating in northern Costa Rica have engaged in cocaine trafficking, in part to help finance their war against Nicaragua's leftist government, according to U.S. investigators and American volunteers who work with the rebels," our AP story read.

It was the first article alleging contra drug trafficking and it was sharply criticized by both the Reagan-Bush administration and the conservative media. The contras were already reeling from widespread charges that they engaged in rape, torture and murder of Nicaraguan civilians. The day our AP story ran, deputy State Department spokesman Charles Redman declared, "we are not aware of any evidence to support those charges" -- a claim Barger and I knew to be untrue. But Redman's denial was just the start of a cover-up by the "just-say-no" crowd.

Contra Probes

The contra-drug story -- and others we had written about Oliver North's secret contra supply operation -- did, however, attract the attention of a young U.S. senator, John Kerry, D-Mass., who instructed his staff to investigate. A federal prosecutor, Jeffrey Feldman, also was sniffing around in Miami and Costa Rica. He had uncovered allegations of gun-running and some hints of drug-trafficking by the contras.

But Feldman's probe drew a watchful eye from senior Justice Department officials in Washington. On a trip to Miami, Attorney General Edwin Meese III talked about the investigation with Feldman's boss, U.S. Attorney Leon Kellner. On April 4, 1986, another Miami prosecutor David Leiwant said he overheard Kellner saying that Washington had ordered him to "go slow" on the contra probe, a claim Kellner later denied.

At AP, Barger and I got wind of the federal investigation, too, and published a story disclosing that the U.S. Attorney's office in Miami was examining allegations of contra gun-running and drug-trafficking. The AP article prompted a front-page attack on our work by The Washington Times, a right-wing newspaper financed by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.

But it was not just conservatives giving us trouble. The New York Times weighed in with an article knocking down our story. A reporter for the prestigious Times interviewed Meese's spokesman Patrick Korten who dismissed the contra allegations by claiming that "various bits of information got referred to us. We ran them all down and didn't find anything. It comes to nothing."

Despite those public declarations from Washington, Feldman and Miami-based FBI agents actually were finding a lot. On May 14, 1986, Feldman recommended to his superiors that the evidence of contra crimes was strong enough to take the case to a grand jury. Feldman's boss, Kellner, scribbled on the memo, "I concur that we have sufficient evidence to ask for a grand jury investigation."

But on May 20, Kellner met with his top aides and reversed the recommendation. Without telling Feldman, Kellner rewrote the memo to state that "a grand jury investigation at this point would represent a fishing expedition with little prospect that it would bear fruit." Kellner then signed Feldman's name to the memo, again without telling Feldman, and sent the memo to Washington on June 3. The doctored memo was then slipped to congressional Republicans who leaked it to the conservative media and used it to discredit Kerry, who was put under a Senate Ethics Committee investigation for his troubles. The contra cover-ups were under way.

Exposure

Even after North's contra supply operations were exposed in October 1986, when one of his planes (which had been used to carry cocaine) was shot down, the allegations about contra drug trafficking continued facing Reagan-Bush denunciations and little interest in either Congress or the media. In July 1987, a spectator interrupted North's Iran-contra testimony by demanding that someone "ask about the cocaine." But the only response was a cursory review released by Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., which concluded that there was no truth to the contra drug charges.

Still, stories continued to percolate about contra cocaine trafficking. I even learned that Vice President Bush's national security aide Donald Gregg, a former CIA officer, had helped organize a pre-Oliver North contra-aid network that had included a drug-tainted enterprise called the Arms Supermarket. In May 1988, when I was working at Newsweek, I wrote an article that cited government documents and high-level administration officials confirming that the Arms Supermarket "was financed at least in part with drug money."

Bush, who had been chief of Reagan's drug task force, was then running for president and claiming that he had been "out of the loop" on Iran-contra. So his aides harshly attacked the Newsweek story. Internally, Newsweek senior editors, who shared a real-politick view of fighting leftists in the Third World, took Bush's side and throttled any further investigation of the vice president's unsavory contra drug connections. The Washington Post, Newsweek's sister publication, didn't help by joining in the ridicule of the contra drug stories. My Newsweek career came to an end in 1990.

In the following years, official Washington effectively committed the contra-drug story to the loony bin of conspiracy theories. Even when Panama's Manuel Noriega was tried on drug charges in 1991 and witnesses implicated the contras, too, that evidence drew almost no public attention. To recognize the contra drug trafficking would mean, of course, re-examining the role of then-President Bush as well as exposing the incompetence of the elite Washington news media.

Recently, however, I discovered documents in the National Archives that shed more light on who was behind the drug-linked contra operations. The papers were a series of flow charts showing who was responsible for the secret support of the Nicaraguan contras at different phases. The chart, unsigned but apparently prepared by a Reagan-Bush insider, described how Bush and Gregg took the lead in arranging off-the-books support for the contras after Congress cut off CIA funding in 1984.

A Mystery Market

One chart described "Max Gomez," whose real name was Felix Rodriguez, a CIA-trained Cuban exile, as the Bush-Gregg man on the ground in Central America. "Max Gomez" pulled in another former CIA Cuban exile named, Mario Delamico, who held "a position of authority with Honduran officers and the FDN [contra] camp," the chart said. Delamico, in turn, set up the "Arms Warehouse/Supermarket" in Honduras, with a corrupt Honduran officer, named "Col. Aplicano."

The chart noted that "the 'Arms Warehouse' was started with seed money of approximately $14 million from the CIA. Later, it was believed that funds relating to narcotics traffic found its way into the inventory in the warehouse." Though the chart matched with the earlier suspicions about Bush's team, the information apparently was never seriously pursued during the Iran-contra investigations, which wound down in 1993.

When President Bush lost re-election in 1992, whatever scant media interest in the crimes of that era evaporated. Unlike other countries which have sought to achieve some accounting for official crimes of the Cold War, the United States seems determined to forget the past. The Clinton administration and congressional Democrats, such as Lee Hamilton, have joined in whitewashing other evidence that Reagan and Bush had presided over an era of extraordinary criminality.

[font size="5"][font color="green"]For instance, Clinton prosecutors ignored credible evidence -- including a sworn affidavit from Reagan national security aide Howard Teicher -- so they could reject allegations that the Republicans had helped arm Iraq's Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. For his part, Hamilton hid documentary evidence that Reagan's 1980 campaign had colluded with Iranian terrorists to stymie President Carter's efforts to free 52 American hostages. (See The October Surprise X-Files: The Hidden Origins of the Reagan-Bush Era.) [/font color][/font size]

Other Crimes

There has been no serious follow-up on a host of other Reagan-Bush crimes either: the support for Central American death squads; the cover-up of the 1981 El Mozote massacre in El Salvador; collaboration with Noriega; protection for the heroin trade of another CIA-backed group, the Afghan mujahadeen; Ferdinand Marcos's alleged multi-million-dollar pay-offs to Ronald Reagan; the BCCI affair; the savings-and-loan plundering and a hundred other economic rip-offs that enriched the few and left the nation trillions of dollars in debt.

So it was not entirely surprising that Gary Webb's remarkable story about contras and crack caused not a ripple of official reaction. The disclosures were not even mentioned in the nation's two leading papers, The New York Times and The Washington Post. After all, since both prestige papers had blown the story in the 1980s, they weren't eager to admit their screw-up now.

Apparently confident that the Republican crimes will continue to go unchallenged, GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole (who played a prominent role in the Iran-contra cover-up) even had the audacity to attack Clinton on the rise in drug use among teen-agers. Going still further, Dole pledged that as president, he would involve the CIA in the war on drugs.

Still, the elite of Washington seem content to turn a blind eye on the dark history of the 1980s. Presumably, the sanitized history is safer for the careers of those -- Republican, Democrat, journalist and bureaucrats -- who protected a criminal enterprise at the very heart of national power.

Copyright (c) 1996

SOURCE: https://consortiumnews.com/archive/lost7.html

More information: https://consortiumnews.com/archive/lost.html

So, there's that, too.

you lose.

Gosh, I didn't know it was a contest.

You must be Cass Sunstein or on Fox tee vee.

As for ConsortiumNews, it is a lot different from Corporate Owned News. It tells the truth.

seen here

had Perot not cost Clinton his mandates both times. Would he have gotten more done? How many fewer witch hunts would've occurred, Monica included. Would he be more honoured amongst progressives?

It isn't often that you see such unbridled hero worship and refusal to face facts.

My mom did that to me when she saw Michael Beschloss on tee vee and told me she wished I were more like him. Seeing how I look like Luca Brasi and dress like Gilligan the Sailor, that's a problem. Glad to write when I show Mom this picture, she knows all the participants:

Kennebunkport, July 30, 1983: Bill Clinton, George Bush & George Wallace

CREDIT: AP/Birmingham Post

SOURCE: http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/george-wallace/13/

My mom's favorite historian says it's genuine:

https://twitter.com/beschlossdc/status/275941914182828033

I am NOT the one refusing to fact that no empirical, numerical, or statistical data shows Perot costing Bush anything.

I wrote in #16 above:



So. Where did I disagree with your genius, ericson00?

Do you think someone will hit "Alert" for pointing that out, again?

You still need a basis to say that. There is ZERO empirical evidence to suggest that the 19% came from one candidate enough to swing the election one way or another, unless of course you can provide such data. There is way to much to the contrary.

You're the expert, according to you.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1992-elections-disappointment-analysis-eccentric-but-no-joke-perot-s-strong.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/11/08/perot-seen-not-affecting-vote-outcome/27500538-cee8-4f4f-8e7f-f3ee9f2325d1/


http://www.ontheissues.org/Ross_Perot.htm

Get to 1,000 posts for even more cred.

"there is no global warming." Here is my empirical data:

1. Exit polls from election night 1992, a better method than just saying what one wants to believe, show that Clinton would have won over 50% of the vote absent Perot, and thus in more than 9 in 10 trials, the election.

2. George H.W. Bush's approval ratings in 1992 rivaled Jimmy Carter's in 1980. Both in their election years were not only lower than Reagan 84 and Clinton 96, but lower than Bush 04 and Obama 12. You don't win with under 40% and below approvals.

3. The GOP (and the anti-Clinton fringe left) also leave out that when Perot was not in the race, which was from July to the start of October 1992, Bush Sr. still polled near the 37% that approved of his performance and that he won in the end. Nate Silver, a data and stats expert, also disagrees with the idea that Perot cost Bush tho he does believe he hurt Clinton.

4. Ross Perot was not a conservative like Nader was a liberal or Trump is running as a conservative. Perot was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and against trickle down economics.

5. For Bush to have won 270 EVs, he'd have needed to win almost every state (here's a hypo map: ) he lost by less than 5, which doesn't happen when a president has Carteresque election year approvals. Also note that he'd have needed WI, but Dukakis won that when Bush was popular, so Bush wasn't going to win when he was very unpopular. Remember, that map is a best-case scenario for a president with approvals we have not seen an incumbent pres beside Bush I who was seeking re-election have for 35 years. Bush Sr. and Jimmy Carter.

You cannot just make such huge claims like you have without empirical data. If you want to use a RW smear that goes against data, go join the GOP.

you make a claim that belongs on FR or RS: "Weren't for Perot, there'd be no Clinton administration." That is historically, numerically, statistically, and intellectual bankrupt. Where is your backup for your assertion???

Jeb needs to pack it in now, because he's circling the drain.

Thanks for these pics, irisblue.

There are many who haven't forgotten what Jeb said in the 1994 Florida governor's race, when asked what he might do for black Floridans. He answered, "Probably nothing."

He then lost the Governor's race to Governor Lawton Chiles, with only 4% of the African American vote.

in the first pic are priceless. Especially the gal on the right: "WHAT did he just say??"

He generally avoids using this term, I don't get it. The only explanation is that Trump has him rattled. If he can't handle Trump how is he going to handle Putin?

Take a look at this little nugget from the WP yesterday:

Jeb is flipping out, no doubt about it.

Anyone who lived in FL during his governorship knows that. I well remember watching a few of his press conferences. He does not handle being questioned well at all.

Like kings of old or something.

you needn't answer questions from the peasantry.

and specifically, "Mama Told Me Not to Come".

http://www.nme.com/photos/music-s-most-tragic-tribute-acts/276549#/photo/8

The members of which should be extirpated root and branch from American public life.

In perpetuity.

Poor Jeb thought that winning the support of the GOP donor class was all he needed to do to be the GOP nominee. This plan worked for his brother

Why not? Isn't Duke the smart one?