# Jeb and the Bloomberg Foundation: How Screwed Is Jeb? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 31, 2015, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661 "2015-07-31T17:02:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/1 "2015-07-31T17:02:32Z")
Apparently Jeb! was on the board of directors of the Bloomberg foundation ([bloomberg.org](http://bloomberg.org)) from 2010 until last year, when he resigned to run for President. And the foundation (a) has given millions to Planned Parenthood, and (b) has aided reproductive rights, including access to abortion, around the world. Not just in the distant past, but in the immediate past as well. It’s all over right-wing outfits like Newsmax and The Daily Caller right now. And great timing, given that in the next eight days, we’ve got the Fox debate, and the RedState confab in Atlanta. The latter is run by wingnut blowhard Erick Erickson, who is getting ready to [demand that all GOP candidates vow to defund Planned Parenthood](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_07/pope_erick_speaks_shut_down_th056860.php), by shutting down the government if need be. [The Daily Caller](http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/30/jeb-bush-sat-on-board-of-philanthropy-that-gave-millions-to-planned-parenthood/): > [@](#): > > Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush was one of the directors of a charity that gave tens of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, LifeSiteNews first reported. > > Named a founding director to the tax-exempt Bloomberg Family Foundation in 2010, Bush sat on the board until the end of 2014 when he began to prepare for his presidential run. > > Bloomberg Philanthropies announced in March of 2014, while Bush was still on the board, it was giving $50 million to strengthen “reproductive health rights in Burkina Faso, Nicaragua, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda.” > > According to a Bloomberg Family Foundation statement, the philanthropy teamed up with Planned Parenthood to send abortion activists into these countries to “help augment their capacity for effective advocacy.” > > \ > > Mike Bloomberg himself, Life Site News notes, discussed how his family foundation’s partnership would function with Planned Parenthood. > > “I am happy to say our major partner in this project will be Planned Parenthood – Global,” Bloomberg said. “In some countries, our funding will help advocates work towards better sexual health policies for teens and better access to contraceptives. In others, we’ll help push for less restrictive abortion laws and more government funding for high-quality, accessible services.” The Bush campaign says that Jeb didn’t vote on individual projects, and he and Bloomberg agree on some things and disagree on others. I don’t think that’s gonna save his sorry ass. As far as most Republicans nowadays are concerned, this is consorting with Satan. His hundred-million dollar campaign chest and his GOP Establishment connections aren’t gonna save him either. He’s toast. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/2 "2015-07-31T17:20:23Z")
The Bloomberg Foundation strikes me as an odd thing for Bush to have been a part of in the first place. I mean, if you look at who his [co-directors](http://www.mikebloomberg.com/news/bloomberg-family-foundation-announces-four-new-board-members/) were, it’s sort of a grab bag of former and current Democratic politicians; various folks who would probably be described on the right as “East Coast elites;” and a handful of Republicans (interestingly enough including Mitch McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao). > [@](#): > > The four new board members are Secretary Elaine L. Chao, Admiral Michael Mullen, Sam Palmisano, and Anne Tatlock. > > … > > The 19 individuals who already serve on the Board of Directors are Dr. Tenley E. Albright, Emma Bloomberg, Georgina Bloomberg, Mayor Cory A. Booker, former Senator David L. Boren, former Governor Jeb Bush, Kenneth I. Chenault, D. Ronald Daniel, former Mayor Manny Diaz, Fiona Druckenmiller, First Deputy Mayor Patricia E. Harris, Walter Isaacson, Maya Lin, John J. Mack, Reverend Joseph M. McShane, former Senator Sam Nunn, former Secretary Henry “Hank” Paulson, Jr., Sir Martin Sorrell, and Dr. Alfred Sommer. Is the Bloomberg/Planned Parenthood thing lethal in itself? No. But I think it’s symptomatic of his weaknesses as a candidate that do, IMO, make him far from a lock for the nomination. He’s not nearly hawkish enough for the current GOP zeitgeist (see: Iran debate, James Baker debacle earlier this year). He’s too moderate on issues like immigration. He’s not that charismatic and frankly just seems like he doesn’t really have the fight in him. He’s as weak a frontrunner as Romney was, but unlike Romney there are credible alternatives this cycle. Yes, I think he’s probably screwed, for this and other reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/3 "2015-07-31T17:29:16Z")
But Bush’s pitch was never that he was the buggiest-eyed of the red meat throwers. He’s the guy you hold your nose and vote for because you think he can win the general. If past is prologue, he will sit in third or fourth for a while until the other clowns self-immolate and him and Walker fight the real fight. The 12% of whatever he’s pulling down right now isn’t going to move because they find out he was on the board of an organization that did things they don’t like–all such people are already supporting other candidates. If the story doesn’t damage his electability among moderates (as perceived by Republicans), then it doesn’t really damage his brand, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![DerekMichaels00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@DerekMichaels00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DerekMichaels00)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/4 "2015-07-31T17:54:31Z")
When you’re a Bush and not the clear front-runner some time out, as Bush Sr. was in 1987 or W. was [wayyy before](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/09/12/poll/) 2000, you got problems. I think its Scott Walker or Donald Trump’s nomination to lose at this point. Walker is the most conservative non-Trump or non-Bush candidate and if there’s anyone who would unite enough establishment and grassroots ones, Walker is it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/5 "2015-07-31T18:28:15Z")
I don’t think it will hurt him. The cognitive dissonance is strong among conservatives. Besides the money men in the party don’t really care about abortions. They’re only concerned about business issues like tax breaks, government contracts, union busting, and deregulation. As long as Bush toes the line on those issues, he’ll stay funded. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/6 "2015-07-31T18:41:26Z")
“Screwed” is hard to say. Has his status as the forbidding shoo-in candidate been lessened? Oh, yeah. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/7 "2015-07-31T22:49:03Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > As far as most Republicans nowadays are concerned, this is consorting with Satan. Let’s look at this assumption first. [According to Gallup](http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx) 69% of Republicans are pro-life. 24% of Republicans say they will only vote for someone who’s views match theirs on abortion. There’s some analysis on data not presented in the breakdown to see if some of them are Pro-choice (although I doubt it is significant.) I think we can safely call using that litmus test and being pro-life as meeting your consort with Satan standard. Maybe a quarter of Republicans fit description not most That’s before we consider the Republican leaning independents although their primary turnout tends to be lower. Let’s look at the sponsors/co-sponsors of the PP defunding bill in the Senate. There’s 24 names on it with 54 Senate Republicans. Even accounting for pressure from the furor, most Senate Republicans didn’t slap their name on as co-sponsors. We’re closer to split but still not to most. A couple have come out as opposed to shutdown chicken even if they support defunding. So Ericson tried to make a new litmus test for a specific bill within the overall litmus test. He’s not the voice of the majority of Republicans though. He’s the voice of a minority. It a powerful minority because they’ve been engaged and cohesive. It’s not a great election cycle to be going all in on this one sub-issue though. Potentially the field is still more open than normal come the early March primaries that includes a good chunk of the Bible belt. That could diffuse their power. To top it all off the current frontrunner was, until recently, pro-choice. Angry, high school educated, disenfranchised white populism doesn’t match with anti-abortion at all costs and is cutting across voting blocs. That and his willingness to spout off could land him in trouble and provide a lot of cover for everyone else. This is a challenge for those candidates taking a more socially moderate path throug the minefield but it’s not insurmountable IMO. A misstep could screw them though. Ericson could also be screwing himself by chasing this small thing so fervently. I can at least dream it’s the later. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/8 "2015-08-01T01:04:16Z")
His grandfather ran Planned Parenthood’s fundraising campaign, and his father was a big supporter of Title X when he was in Congress, and when he was UN ambassador, was a big supporter of the UNFPA. So family tradition, I guess? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/9 "2015-08-01T02:58:26Z")
Let’s look at this from another perspective. Let’s say that a Democratic candidate was a member of PNAC but opposed the war. Would that be better than a Democrat who wasn’t a member of PNAC and voted for the war? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/10 "2015-08-01T05:52:42Z")
I don’t know that a Bush boy sitting on a board means anything other than that they might show up and give backrubs. Lot of air between their ears. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/11 "2015-08-01T05:58:12Z")
PNAC is a tiny group of grandiose imperialists. Did _any_ of them oppose the war? Planned Parenthood is a major charity. Hardly the same thing. (For those who have adaher blocked, his post is about as bizarre as it sounds.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/12 "2015-08-01T06:52:47Z")
Either the crazies smell blood in the water, or just think they do. They’ve won a lot of nasty little victories lately when it comes to crimping access to abortion, but nothing major. Still, maybe they think they are on a roll, time to strike a big one. Kinda think they’ve bitten off more than they can chew. ACORN was easy, naive, idealistic and scruffy. Planned Parenthood is respectable and have defended that respectability for years and years, this ain’t their first rodeo. They know how to conduct political trench warfare over polite cups of tea. Calm murmurings about mailing lists of sympathetic voters, donations, that sort of lady-like chatter. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/13 "2015-08-01T07:13:47Z")
> **[State Probes Find Zero Planned Parenthood Violations As Antiabortion Group Is...](https://www.yahoo.com/news/state-level-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-125533982837.html)** > > Planned Parenthood has come under fire, but two investigations this week found no wrongdoing by the organization. The antiabortion group Center for Medical Progress (CMP) has now released four highly edited undercover videos claiming to show... \*\* State Probes Find Zero Planned Parenthood Violations As Antiabortion Group Is Sued Over Undercover Videos\*\* > [@](#): > > …Additionally, two state level investigations have so far shown no wrongdoing by the national women’s health organization. > > In an investigation in Indiana — called for earlier this month by Governor Mike Pence, a staunch conservative and leading voice in the Republican party — the Indiana Department of Health has ruled that the nonprofit women’s healthcare provider was in full compliance with all state regulations…In Massachusetts, a similar statewide investigation was also closed earlier this week, likewise finding no wrongdoing… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/14 "2015-08-01T11:52:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Let’s say that a Democratic candidate was a member of PNAC but opposed the war. PNAC was formed for the purpose of promoting the war. Might as well ask what would happen if the sky were green. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/15 "2015-08-01T14:50:16Z")
Yeah, I might hold my nose and vote for a Democrat who was a part of PNAC, if the opponent were even worse. But anyone who was part of PNAC but who claimed to be against the war is a lying hypocrite, because that’s what PNAC was all about. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/16 "2015-08-01T15:15:34Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > Let’s look at this assumption first. [According to Gallup](http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx) 69% of Republicans are pro-life. Damn, I’m surprised it’s that low. The other 31% are pretty much invisible, aren’t they? But I will confess my skepticism that, assuming this ‘silent minority’ exists in those numbers, they will have any more effect on the GOP nomination process than they have on any other intraparty business. > [@](#): > > 24% of Republicans say they will only vote for someone who’s views match theirs on abortion. “Would you only vote for a candidate who shares your views on abortion?” (the actual wording) is pretty vague. ‘Shares my views’ at what level of detail? Because there’s a thicket of abortion-related issues that go well past the ‘pro-choice’ v. ‘pro-life’ labels, and the pro-life side especially is attuned to the gradations these days. If a candidate \*differs from their views \*in that he’s a squish on the ‘right’ of pharmacists to keep their jobs while not dispensing birth control, they’ll still vote for him. Gallup fail. > [@](#): > > Let’s look at the sponsors/co-sponsors of the PP defunding bill in the Senate. There’s 24 names on it with 54 Senate Republicans. Even accounting for pressure from the furor, most Senate Republicans didn’t slap their name on as co-sponsors. We’re closer to split but still not to most. A couple have come out as opposed to shutdown chicken even if they support defunding. Not everyone co-sponsors everything. Will they all _vote_ to shut down PP? Yes, every last one of them. The 24 are probably more indicative of the support for _shutting down the government_ over funding PP. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > So Ericson tried to make a new litmus test for a specific bill within the overall litmus test. He’s not the voice of the majority of Republicans though. He’s the voice of a minority. It a powerful minority because they’ve been engaged and cohesive. It’s not a great election cycle to be going all in on this one sub-issue though. With the possible exception of Trump, I would bet that every GOPer attending Erickson’s shindig next weekend (and that’s everyone with a shot at the grownup table except Paul and Kasich, plus some of the others) commits to defunding PP; the only question is how many don’t commit to shutting down the government if necessary to defund PP. On this particular point, you won’t have to wait long to see whether I’ve gauged this crowd correctly. We’ll know in a week. > [@](#): > > Potentially the field is still more open than normal come the early March primaries that includes a good chunk of the Bible belt. That could diffuse their power. I don’t see it. Candidates that go 0-for-3 through Iowa, NH, and SC will either fold their tents or largely be ignored, unless their names are Bush or Trump. People will be focused by then on who _can_ win the nomination, and which one of those they want. > [@](#): > > To top it all off the current frontrunner was, until recently, pro-choice. Angry, high school educated, disenfranchised white populism doesn’t match with anti-abortion at all costs and is cutting across voting blocs. What’s it matter? They’re not gonna save Bush or Rubio. If Trump implodes, guys like Walker, Huckabee, and Cruz are the natural inheritors of his support. > [@](#): > > Ericson could also be screwing himself by chasing this small thing so fervently. I can at least dream it’s the later. The fact that Erickson’s become a Somebody in GOP politics (a fact that speaks volumes about today’s GOP) while being a total ignoramus and a shrill blowhard means it’s going to be pretty hard for him to screw himself. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2015, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/17 "2015-08-02T05:32:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > PNAC was formed for the purpose of promoting the war. Might as well ask what would happen if the sky were green. PNAC was founded in 1997. You’re not a Truther, are you? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2015, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/18 "2015-08-02T05:38:06Z")
In 1997, they had not totally decided who we were going to war with, Iraq was the most likely prospect, with Iran something of a dark hearse candidate. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2015, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/19 "2015-08-02T05:48:47Z")
Theen he should have written “formed for the purpose of promoting **A** war.” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2015, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661/20 "2015-08-02T09:44:39Z")
Reminds me of “[Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finally Over](http://www.theonion.com/article/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros-464),” Jan. 17, 2001: > [@](#): > > During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years. > > “You better believe we’re going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration,” said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. “Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?” Going back to “Would you only vote for a candidate who shares your views on abortion?” another aspect of the vagueness is, are we talking about the general election, or a primary field with lots of choices? Because I’d bet even the vast majority of the 24% of Republicans who answered ‘yes’ to that question would vote for Jeb against Hillary in the general election, regardless of how closely they feel he shares their views on abortion, because they damn sure know Hillary _doesn’t_. But in a primary with decent (from their POV) alternatives? They’ve got lots of room to be picky. One thing we should see if I’m right is, in those polling questions that ask which candidates you would absolutely NOT vote for, for the GOP nomination, the proportion of GOPers who absolutely wouldn’t support Jeb for the nomination should climb over the next few weeks. If they don’t, then this won’t have been the big deal I think it is. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-and-the-bloomberg-foundation-how-screwed-is-jeb/726661.md?page=2)