---------------------------
Bush owned his first business, which went under. After that, he never owned anything. He was moved into a series of cushy figurehead positions reqyiring no personal investment other than the family name. The athletic team was greatly financed through a political deal in which the city/state confiscated the land for it. Out of an original investment of $15,000 in his first faltering business, Bush came out with tens of millions of dollars for practical purposes as gifts in return for use of the Bush name.
Bush owned his first business, which went under.
If you are talking about Harken Energy, you are totally incorrect. Harken Energy didn't go under. Bush sold his stock (at $4), the company did go through some restructuring but was still operable and a year later the stock was valued at $8.
Source: The Truth about "The Resume"
He was moved into a series of cushy figurehead positions reqyiring no personal investment other than the family name
Well, first of all, you seem to think that there is something wrong with being paid because of your name. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not illegal and apparently it pays well. Recognized figures get paid because of their name recognition.
If RLK was a recognizable name and someone wanted to pay you $500,000 (amount?) per year to promote their product or service, would you? With the only possible caveat being asked to promote something illegal, if you say no, you're a liar, an idiot, or both. Of course, you would. Everyone would.
Now, you could make the argument that it is shallow. However, that really doesn't wash either. In fact, George W Bush wasn't just a "rainmaker" as you imply. W's most well-known "rainmaker" job was with the Texas Rangers. But, as it turns out (and much to your dismay), he wasn't just a figurehead at all. Here are the facts (try not to stuggle with them too much):
"He was a constant presence in the ballpark, keeping everybody, from the ushers to the players, feeling good about the franchise. His ownership group was an ever shifting stew of between a dozen and two dozen millionaires; he spent a lot of time keeping them happy. During games he sat in a box next to the dugout, not in the normal owner’s box above. He ribbed the players, passed out autographed baseball cards of himself to fans, and shouted jokes to the managers. Bush spoke at Rotary Clubs about the glories of baseball and even made cold calls to prospective season-ticket buyers."The athletic team was greatly financed through a political deal in which the city/state confiscated the land for it. Out of an original investment of $15,000 in his first faltering business, Bush came out with tens of millions of dollars for practical purposes as gifts in return for use of the Bush name."He was not merely a cheerleader. He was known around baseball as an activist owner—less activist than Yankees owner George Steinbrenner or Orioles owner Peter Angelos, but more activist than most".
Source: Texas Ranger
Incoherently wrong.
The only part that you partially got right was that there was that The Ballpark at Arlington was tax-payer financed. However, there was no land grab, as you so falsely alledged. Hold on, here's the facts:
When the Rangers moved to Texas from Washington, they were housed in a glorified minor-league ballpark, with lousy seats and few luxury boxes to generate revenue. Bush, Rose, Schieffer, and Richard Greene, the mayor of Arlington, developed a proposal to hike the city’s sales tax by half a cent to raise $135 million for the new stadium. It was put to the voters in a referendum. Bush campaigned for it, while critics called it welfare for millionaires. In the biggest turnout in Arlington history, the measure passed by 2 to 1.Additionally, tax-payer funded stadiums have been occuring since the 50s. In fact, only 1 stadium since the 50s was built WITHOUT municipal involvment and/or tax-payer money. So, there isn't anything amiss about this.
Source: Texas Ranger
Now, was the purchase of the Texas Rangers predicated on the moving from the "glorified minor-league ballpark"? Maybe. Maybe not. The fact are that:
"Revenues were $28.8 million the year before Bush and company bought the team. They were up to $62.4 million in 1993, the last year in the old stadium. But in the new park, attendance jumped by 700,000, with revenues skyrocketing to $116 million last year.I don't care what you call him, but W is a "gamer". He is not a figurehead. Rather, he is an effective executive who lets people who know how to do the job, do the job. Its really the first rule of being an effective executive: get the hell out of the way!
Source: Texas Ranger
WOW.
You completely 'flew through' his getting an education, his risking his neck in an old delta-wing fighter design and the hard WORK< he did day in and day out actually running the Texas Rangers from his office on the property.
Good work scoundrel!