A column in the paper of record for the globalist “Party of Davos” argues that a Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush battle for the White House in 2016 will be a win-win for America.
Writing in the Financial Times, Ed Luce notes that “as wealth is concentrated in fewer hands, so too is political capital” and “the problem with plutocracy is that it is unmeritocratic.”
However, he argues, Bush and Clinton are “by far their party’s most qualified candidates” and “both deserve their nominations on merit” because each has “made at least as strong a case against the new age of inherited wealth as their peers.”
He does not mention that Bush and Clinton have symbolized the “Boomtown” culture in which politicians have no shame about using their “experience” and connections to enrich themselves after they leave office.
Hillary Clinton claimed she and her husband have made more than $100 million in speeches since being “dead broke” once they left the White House, and companies and groups that pay the Clintons for six-figure speeches may want something in return if Hillary occupies the White House.
As for Bush, the New York Times noted that after Bush left office seven years ago, he had an “unapologetic determination to expand his wealth, telling friends that his finances had suffered during his time in government.” Some of those ventures may come back to haunt him.
Bush advised Lehman Brothers before it nearly took down the financial system in 2008, and he was also a “paid director” for a healthcare company “that aggressively supported and promoted Obamacare because it would be profitable for the company.” He was associated with a company in which investors lost all of their money and whose director went to jail. He has been accused of “insufficient oversight” at another company that reportedly lost three fourths of its value.
Bush and Clinton, though, “radiate competence,” according to Luce. He never mentions the questions surrounding Benghazi or Hillary Clinton’s relative lack of accomplishments in the Senate or at the State Department before declaring that Clinton’s credentials are just “so strong.” Age won’t matter as much for either, the Times believes, because of Bush’s and Clinton’s “experience.” Failed GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole may disagree with that.
Though Luce observes that “conservative activists see the Bush name as synonymous with tax and spend” and “capturing the Republican nomination would be quite a hill for Jeb to climb,” he believes Bush’s road to the nomination is getting easier by the day. He praises Bush for talking “passionately” about the “declining middle class” even though his embrace of amnesty will further its decline by undercutting the wages of American workers, according to a Congressional Budget Office report.
Bush and Clinton’s support for “comprehensive immigration reform” has also, according to law enforcement officials, in part convinced young illegal immigrants to pour into the United States hoping they will also get amnesty. As the Obama administration sends illegal immigrants to states like Arizona and military bases in Oklahoma, budgets are being strained and national security is threatened.
Luce, though, believes “a battle of the dynasties would be America’s best shot at a debate that focused on what is on most voters’ minds” even though there would not be much daylight between them on issues, like Common Core and amnesty, favored by the bipartisan permanent political class.