On the surface Neil Bush's making between $300.00 and $400.00 an hour for consulting fee's isn't much of a big deal. Many lawyers receive that an more for thier consultations. But if you might recall Neil was eyeball deep in the Silverado Savings and Loan debacle.
From http://www.nathanielblumberg.com/neil.htm
"What did Neil Bush do in 1985 after he became a director of the Silverado Banking, Savings & Loan Association that went bust three years later at a cost to taxpayers of at least $1.6 billion? Among other improprieties involving "some of the worst kinds of conflicts of interest" according to federal regulators, he admits that he failed to list his business relationship on a conflict-of-interest form when he got a $100,000 loan from a developer who was a partner in his oil company. That was after he helped approve more than $100 million worth of loans to that business partner. When he wrote "None" on that form, he actually was dependent on one of the thrift's biggest borrowers for the entire $75,000 annual salary that was his main source of income. "I know it sounds a little fishy," he admitted when he testified that the loan was not to be repaid unless JNB Exploration was successful, which it wasn't. What it was, he said in one of the classic understatements of our time,"was an incredibly sweet deal." One bemused expert observed that it "may have been the first completed loan in financial history in which the creditor defaulted." "The investment booty lavished on this young man by his thrift scam buddies, as he ultimately confessed, had nothing to do with his skill or experience. "I would be naive if I were to sit here and deny that the Bush name didn't have something to do with it," he told Time magazine, explaining how at the age of 30 he was invited to join the board at a federally insured institution. (The average age of a thrift director was 57 and about 1 per cent of all S&L directors were under 35.)"
"While five of Silverado's board members were banned for life from any federally insured institution, Neil Bush was ordered only to "desist from any acts,omissions or practices involving any conflicts of interest, unsafe or unsound practices or breaches of fiduciary duty." In other words, to do nothing more than obey the law. And no order to pay restitution."
When I started to respond to you I was actually going to attempt to defend your proposition that Neil Bush's character is nothing like that of the Clinton's, but the more I researched about Neil Bush the more convinced I have become that "he is just like the Clintons" in many regards.
Don't take my word for it. Do a Google seach for "Neil Bush".
And then I return to my original thought. Giving those we "want to like" a pass for behavior we would not "grant that same pass" for with those we dislike doesn't paint us in a very favorable light in my mind's eye.