Concerned Women for America

The Jeb Bush Show (Fancy & Shame)

Republican U.S. presidential hopeful and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush waves after he spoke during the 'Road to Majority' conference June 19, 2015, in Washington, DC. Conservatives gathered at the annual event held by the Faith & Freedom Coalition and Concerned Women for America. (Detail of photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

It would seem we were not the only ones who noticed.

Matthew Yglesias looked into the Jeb Bush’s suggestion of four percent GDP growth:

But 4 percent is not really a round number. The US economy grew faster than 2 percent in 2014, 2013, and 2012 and is projected by most economists to grow faster than 2 percent in 2015. Economists surveyed by the Associated Press, Politico, and the New York Times all doubted that 4 percent growth was achievable.

Wednesday, speaking in Iowa, Jeb defended the 4 percent target on the grounds that “aspirational goals” are important in politics.

According to James Glassman, Bush originally selected this goal at random, backed by zero substantive analysis of any kind:

That ambitious goal was first raised as Bush and other advisers to the George W. Bush Institute discussed a distinctive economic program the organization could promote, recalled James Glassman, then the institute’s executive director.

“Even if we don’t make 4 percent it would be nice to grow at 3 or 3.5,” said Glassman, now a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In that conference call, “we were looking for a niche and Jeb in that very laconic way said, ‘four percent growth.’ It was obvious to everybody that this was a very good idea.”

No, really, is there any telling that doesn’t make the story sound incredibly stupid? As Howard Schneider and Steve Holland explained for Reuters, “Asked by Reuters during a campaign-style stop in New Hampshire on Thursday how he had arrived at the figure, Bush said: ‘It’s a nice round number. It’s double the growth that we are growing at. It’s not just an aspiration. It’s doable.'”

(more…)

Advertisements

A Timeless Conservative Priority

Round Two: Detail from FLCL episode 1, 'Fooly Cooly'.

This is going on. You know, just so you know:

When city lawmakers in Washington, D.C., approved a new law banning discrimination on the basis of reproductive choices, much of the right was not pleased. But the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal website published a report this week that some conservative organizations are actually preparing to ignore the new policy.

Hours after the Senate allowed a controversial anti-discrimination law to officially take effect in the nation’s capital, a group of pro-life organizations released a joint statement pledging to continue operating in accordance with their beliefs – thereby putting themselves at risk of violating the law.

“Despite the enactment of this unjust law, we will continue to hire employees who share our commitment to the dignity of every member of the human family,” reads the statement released by Alliance Defending Freedom, the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Americans United for Life and Americans United for Life Action, March for Life, Concerned Women for America, the Susan B. Anthony List, the Family Research Council and the Assoc. of Christian Schools International.

The groups’ statement added, “We will not abandon the purpose of our organizations in order to comply with this illegal and unjust law. We will vigorously resist any effort under RHNDA to violate our constitutionally protected fundamental rights.”

If so, it seems an interesting showdown is on the horizon.

(Benen)

In a way, certainly this seems sudden. But asserting religious rights to make decisions for other people is the in thing to do among conservatives. There really is nothing new going on here. This is, after all, the same outlook asserting an employer’s right to interfere in doctor-patient relationships, that religious exemption paperwork is a violation of religious conscience, and a religious right to discriminate against homosexuals in the public square. Historically, this is the same outlook as any empowerment majority facing a loss of privilege; equality itself feels dangerous to them, as the unknown is almost always at least a little scary.

Something goes here about teaching an old bull new sh―

Oh, right. Anyway, you get the idea.

____________________

Benen, Steve. “Right vows to ‘vigorously resist’ reproductive rights law”. msnbc. 7 May 2015.

—————. “At the intersection of reproductive choices and discrimination”. msnbc. 6 May 2015.

See Also

Maddow, Rachel. “Republican war on reproductive rights seen in DC bill”. The Rachel Maddow Show. msnbc. 6 May 2015.