reply to post by ColoradoJens
Thanks, I'm learning a lot. It may be hard to believe, but I'm more impressed with the comedy resume. I'm sure it could be duplicated for any
politician, but there's stuff in there worth exploring. The rest, not so much.
The three "angels," Besides the question of whether people throw their money away when they think there's no chance of success, I don't know how
the oil business as a whole was doing, and whether the "stagnation" was due to Bush's decisions, and if they were, whether they were "stupid."
I'd hate to think that every business that needs financial help is run by stupid people. But, maybe, in this case it was Bush stupidity, I don't
The Harken thing? Bush was investigated and cleared. Any "lingering questions" were probably being asked by people who didn't like him. And as
for using Bush's name to get business, one, that's not his doing, and two, doesn't every prominent person do it?
When it was over, Bush's oil career had merely perpetuated the nagging pattern that marked his life until past the age of 40: Once again, he
had followed his father's path but failed to achieve his father's success
Sam Walton's kids will never match their dad's success,
probably no one ever will. It happens.
The comment from Sodd, he was a lawyer who was suing the Rangers at the time. He's biased, isn't accusing Bush of stupidity or any kind of immoral
behavior. If he's got a complaint, it's with the government that made the deal he didn't like.
So Bush the businessman did prosper. But not by his bootstraps -- with help from wealthy friends and taxpayer subsidies.
I agree, but
many do and it's not an indication of intelligence or stupidity.
ColoradoJens, I really like your work. You're doing a fine job and I'm glad you're taking the time to explore this with me. As I said, you're
teaching me a lot, and I'm grateful.