Thursday, March 23, 2006
HoustonChronicle.com - Katrina funds earmarked to pay for Neil Bush's software program
HoustonChronicle.com - Katrina funds earmarked to pay for Neil Bush's software program
It seems that rumors that former first lady Barbara Bush is self serving and tacky have the ring of authenticity. The article attacks the first lady for making a contribution to victims of Hurricane Katrina conditioned on the fact that the donation be used to buy software from her son's, Neil Bush, software company. Leave it to the Bush family to find personal gain even in charity.
It seems that rumors that former first lady Barbara Bush is self serving and tacky have the ring of authenticity. The article attacks the first lady for making a contribution to victims of Hurricane Katrina conditioned on the fact that the donation be used to buy software from her son's, Neil Bush, software company. Leave it to the Bush family to find personal gain even in charity.
# posted by Strange Anomaly : 11:11 PM
Comments:
<< Home
You make a valid point, but don't ignore a couple of other comments in the article:
Becker said she wasn't at liberty to divulge how much money the Bush family gave to the hurricane funds, but said the "rest of their donation was not earmarked for anything."
(i.e., not ALL of the money went to her son's company)
Nationally, some other donors also specified how they wanted their donations spent, Becker said.
(i.e. Mrs. Bush wasn't the only one to specify how a donation was to be spent)
Pick on them all you want, but make sure you include all the facts.
Becker said she wasn't at liberty to divulge how much money the Bush family gave to the hurricane funds, but said the "rest of their donation was not earmarked for anything."
(i.e., not ALL of the money went to her son's company)
Nationally, some other donors also specified how they wanted their donations spent, Becker said.
(i.e. Mrs. Bush wasn't the only one to specify how a donation was to be spent)
Pick on them all you want, but make sure you include all the facts.
# posted by 
: 8:13 PM
: 8:13 PM
anonymous,
the other facts are interesting, but not really relevant. first, the bush family publicized this donation, probably with the hope of getting some political advantage. second, it's not the earmarking that is relevant, but the earmarking for the personal advantage of a family member. by the way, if someone else was doing this, i don't care who, and it was publicized, i'd still say it was sleazy. which it was.
one other point, i'm sure members of the bush family gave contributions without earmarks. i'm not sure if barbara bush, who is just one family member, did. the bush family comment doesn't really address this point.
Post a Comment
the other facts are interesting, but not really relevant. first, the bush family publicized this donation, probably with the hope of getting some political advantage. second, it's not the earmarking that is relevant, but the earmarking for the personal advantage of a family member. by the way, if someone else was doing this, i don't care who, and it was publicized, i'd still say it was sleazy. which it was.
one other point, i'm sure members of the bush family gave contributions without earmarks. i'm not sure if barbara bush, who is just one family member, did. the bush family comment doesn't really address this point.
<< Home
