George W. Bush racks up $15 million in speaking fees (who is he speaking to?)

Click here for more information.

SEIU is certainly due some pay back and they have been getting it since the day Obama took the oath

Andrew Stern is a close friend of President Barack Obama. That's hardly a revelation. His organization, the Service Employees International Union, spent more than $60 million to get him elected. And President Obama has made clear that he is fully committed to promoting the political goals of organized labor. But Stern may have gone outside federal law in his nearly two dozen documented White House visits through this mid-September.

SEIU President Frequent WH Visitor.

Was Stern violating the law?

reply to post by jibeho

Was Stern violating the law?

I doubt if he's worried. After all, look who the Attorney General is. Who's gonna prosecute him?

Christian Conservatives.

They'll believe anything.

And pay for the privilege.

reply to post by mishigas


i'll take that as a concession of defeat.

Thanks!

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Who is pandering to Obama? This is something that is thrown around daily on this board and I don't get it. Not everyone is fooled by this false left-right nonsense. Not everyone chooses one side or the other. Just because one verbally attacks Bush, does not mean one likes Obama.

The speaking fees are what they are. Every ex-president does it. What the OP was pointing out is that Bush was speaking to the very people who helped destroy the economy. That should be of concern to everyone.

If Obama knows how much an ex Presiident can earn doing these speaking engagements, he just might rush to become an ex Prez.
Oh crap, I forgot, no teleprompters allowed.

Originally posted by Alxandro
If Obama knows how much an ex Presiident can earn doing these speaking engagements, he just might rush to become an ex Prez.
Oh crap, I forgot, no teleprompters allowed.

No offense, but this sort of thing only helps Obama out. Empty hatred is easy to find. Well thought out discussions of the facts at hand are something you need to put effort into finding. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/79e9d9da3708.jpg[/atsimg] Nothing makes Bush look good about bashing Obama for using a teleprompter and nothing convinces Obama supporters more than when people bash him for things everyone else does anyway. And no, I did not vote for Obama. I am just trying to find a real conversation without all these empty pot shots because they are hardly constructive.

reply to post by Antiquated1

Of course you want proof. Other than the article in the OP that clearly says who he was speaking to and what he got paid, I understand you want solid proof. No guessing or supposition for you.

So what if he was talking to those people. I posted an article myself. It states that Bill Clinton was talking to these same people. Then he he was putting the money in his joint account with Hillary. She voted to bail out these same companies while she was a sitting senator. She also deals with these companies and tries to get them international favor. Now she does it from the office of Secretary of State. She has the president's ear directly. Plus she wields the power of America's entire diplomatic core.

So, if the OP some how proves Bush did something, then we should fillet Bill and Hillary as well. Bill for doing the speaking after his presidency, and Hillary for helping spend the money.

reply to post by MikeNice81


You make a good point. We really need to point out when any ex-president gives these talks. I do, however, think it is slightly more important to focus on Bush at this time, because he is talking to the people who led the downfall under his presidency. But all presidents are in the pockets of these guys.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Either you responded to the wrong post or you did not understand what you read. My point was that in the same breath, Mishigas demanded proof about Bush and then just made up stuff about Obama in the future. I was commenting on that disconnect from reality that allows people to demand proof that Bush was a bad guy but have no problem just making up bad stuff Obama will do in the future. You seem to be responding to the OP because none of your post makes any sense in response to my post.

WHAT 15 million for that dumb ass to speak. The arrogant little silver spoon feed freak would do it for nothing just to hear the sound of his own voice.
Paying Bush for his crap that flows from his mouth is as bad as getting Mike Tyson hosting corrective speach course's for the children. Only an idiot would pay to listen

reply to post by Antiquated1


I missed the last line on my first read through. I apologize for taking your post out of context.

I almost didn't need this line.

reply to post by Antiquated1

Either you responded to the wrong post or you did not understand what you read. My point was that in the same breath, Mishigas demanded proof about Bush and then just made up stuff about Obama in the future.

I didn't 'make up stuff' about Obama. I made a pretty solid prediction. Tell you what: If Obama does not profit from his time in office, then I'll eat my hat. How about that?

reply to post by David9176


Geez I hope he wasn't trying to speak on Ethics?
Good Lord what was his speech to those people...
I bet it was "well done" & giving pats on their backs...

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


You missed my point in a large way. We have to look at all politicians giving these kinds of talks. We need to look at their spouses giving these talks as well.

The same guys that Bush talked put money in Hillary's bank account while she was voting for the bail out.I say it was an indirect bribe through Bill Clinton. How can she vote against the guys that just put millions in her joint account? How can any politician vote against these kinds of interest?

If these talks after leaving office are an act of bribery, what would you call Hillary's win fall? What do we call it when Bill is still getting paid for these kind of talks while she is Secretary of State?

People keep saying we need to look at Bush because of talks after the fact. Not really. His family had ties to most of these firms before hand. Most of these companies funded his campaign. We knew the deal before hand. Where he talks afterwards proves nothing. The proof is allready there.

What we need to be looking at are situations like Hillary's. We need to be looking at the fact that JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Citi Bank are all top ten contributors to Barack Obama's national political career. His biggest contributors have been banks

I'm not attacking Obama or Democrats. I am saying that this is a common practice. The pay off happens before they get to the office. Looking at where they speak afterwards proves nothing. All it proves is that the rich like to buy access to people like them. If you want the good stuff check out websites like Open Secrets. They actually tell you who is funding the canidates.