Quick Fact: Fortune's Serwer falsely claimed that Bush is "not doing any speeches for money"
On Morning Joe, Fortune managing editor Andy Serwer claimed that, since leaving office, former President Bush is "not doing any speeches for money. I respect that." However, Bush reportedly earns up to $150,000 per speaking engagement and has reportedly given at least 30 speeches since leaving office.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Serwer claims Bush "not doing any speeches for money"
From the January 25 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
JOE SCARBOROUGH (co-host): And, by the way, Bush has played his first year away from the White House brilliantly.
SERWER: I agree with that.
SCARBOROUGH: He's kept his down.
SERWER: Yup.
SCARBOROUGH: The only time you hear from him is when he's supporting Obama. I think that's one of the reasons why -- come on --
SERWER: Not doing any speeches for money. I respect that.
FACT: Bush reportedly earns up to $150,000 per speech
News reports: Bush to earn up to $150,000 a speech. A February 24, 2009, New York Daily News article reported: "President George W. Bush may have left office with a historically bad 22% approval rating, but he's still eager to impart his wisdom -- for $150,000 a speech. The former president will charge that hefty fee per pep talk -- plus first-class or private jet transport for four -- when he hits the lecture circuit next month." The Daily News further reported that "for local talks near his new Dallas digs, Bush will cut his price -- to a mere $100,000." The Seattle Post-Intelligencer similarly reported on March 2, 2009, that "Bush will be getting $150,000 a speech when he hits the hustings later this month." Bush is represented by the Washington Speakers Bureau, which notes that Bush's "fees vary by location."
FACT: Bush has reportedly given at least 30 speeches since leaving office
Telegraph reports that Bush has "given 30 speeches" since leaving office. A December 15, 2009, U.K. Telegraph article reported that, according to Bush spokesman David Sherzer, "Bush has actually given 30 speeches ... not only in the US but in India, Korea, China and Japan" since January 20, 2009.
It's typical Republitoad Revisionist History.
Whoa! Bush claimed to be charging for speeches, but links provided and quotes used say he won't charge until next month. And, none of the proof is of the FACTUAL kind ... like providing proof that Bush charged anything, it seems all the proof they have is "reportedly". But, that won't stop the whinos from whining about the man who saved the world from terrorists and WMD's that the democrats whined about in 98. I guess you gotta do something to earn your 8-hours for the day.
I notice Air America is out of business. Did left wing radio have so much talent that they couldn't pay for all of it? Better gear up that "fairness doctrine" rhetoric again. That whine bottle is ripe for the picking now.
Still no links to donate to the Red Cross to save all the victims of Haiti? So much compassion, here!
Really? Then why did terrorist attacks actually increase worldwide during his War for Oil?
Keep flailing; it's fun to watch.
Of course we can discuss the ex-president who "reportedly" raped over 100 women in his political career (and after). You know, the same one who let OBL escape death after having him 'in his sights'. The same one who created a financial system that promoted failure to the worst degree.
On the other hand, we know that President Numbnuts invaded a country needlessly, and that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in that little adventure, in addition to our own tragic losses.
Exactly what "financial system" did Clinton create?
And which war is righteous? There are two of them, you know.
By the way, I resent you accusing Herbert Hoover of such an abominable crime...
Well, at least several hundred thousand Iraqis aren't living in fear because THEY'RE DEAD.
And, I don't seem to remember any loud cry from the Iraqi populace that we invade and occupy their country. Only from Chalabi and Oddball. Funny, isn't it?
Yes, thanks entirely because of the terrorists we were fighting. Well, maybe a couple hundred were killed by US troops... accidentily
There were NO terrorists there until we invaded, you doofus! The reason terrorists were there was because we invaded!!! So, the ENTIRE reason tens of thousands of Iraqi's died is because WE invaded their nation. Because Bush illegally and illegitimately invaded Iraq for no good reason. Bush knew before we invaded that the intelligence that everyone had relied upon was wrong, and that there were no WMD's in Iraq, but he invaded anyway.
Are you holding out for the possibility that Bush spent his first year out of office giving all 30 of his speeches for free?
...reportedly
Bush claimed to be charging for speeches, but links provided and quotes used say he won't charge until next month.
Reading comprehension fail. That 'next' month was April of last year. The article was from March, and it said that in the MMFA article, immediately preceding the comment about 'next month'!
And what does Floyd expect - that we'll see the check that Bush got?
And then he goes off-topic with falsehoods about wondrous Bush was and how out of touch his critics are! He then further goes off-topic by talking about Air America and the crisis in Haiti. But what does he do in his very next post? He complains about someone going off-topic!
Please don't feed this troll any more.
What a dunce you are.
Do you think that we'll see his check stub? He's a guy who commands $150,000 a speech. That's been disclosed. And he's made more than 30 speeches. That's been disclosed. And someone from Fortune Magazine claimed that Bush hadn't been doing any speeches for money! Which isn't true.
Here's a link from ABC News from December, 2009. Bush's spokesman tells us that Bush is getting paid for speeches!!!
Bush spokesman David Sherzer would not say how much the couple is paid for speeches, but pointed out that the San Antonio event organized by Get Motivated! is just one of 32 events the former president is attending this year.
"He really enjoys it," says Sherzer. "He jokes that he's getting paid for what he did for free for eight years as president."
Industry experts say former White House residents don't come cheap.
"It's much more lucrative than being in office," says John LaRosa, research director at Marketdata Enterprises, a research firm that specializes in niche industries.
Or, if 'possibilities' are sufficient to act, then why call the Iraq war needless? Since it was based on 'possibilities'.
Fees of that size are rarely checks, and frequently wire transfers, so it's unlikely there is a check stub.
Was the fee made payable to a foundation, the speaker's bureau, or directly the the speaker?
Lots of questions.
Fees of that size are rarely checks, and frequently wire transfers, so it's unlikely there is a check stub.
Was the fee made payable to a foundation, the speaker's bureau, or directly the the speaker?
Lots of questions.
The only way anyone will see George W. Bush's post-presidency tax returns is if he chooses to disclose them.
If that's the way you want to play the game, then mmfa is no better than all the people they whine about. And, that's true for all left-wingnuts who whine about a war they don't like, simply because it is based on unsubstantiated evidence.
Former presidents have been doing the same thing for years, yet you insist that there's still the prospect that Bush travels the nation giving speeches for free.
You have fun banging your head against the wall.
And 'hearsay' isn't what got us into Iraq. Failure to recognize that the intelligence had been proven wrong, or failure to act upon that actual knowledge the debunked the intelligence, is what got us into an illegitimate and unnecessary, voluntary war in Iraq.
You know, that sounds amazingly similar to Bush saying 'we have evidence of WMDs in Iraq, all the intel says there are WMDs present'. Doesn't your statement sound quite similar? Hmmm, but you think someone 'saying so' is suddenly enough evidence for action? Do you even know what a FACT is? Or, is a fact just like a truth to you ... you'll decide which to believe depending on who tells you to. Independant thinking ... that's a new and dangerous function for liberals, huh?
The funny thing about your delusional statements are that no debunking of evidence for WMDs in Iraq happened until AFTER we went in and found all that he had. Who knew of NO WMDs before we went into Iraq? Not the democratic leaders who ALL claimed those WMDs were a serious danger to the safety of the US (back in 98).
How about you produce evidence that Bush has NOT been paid? You seem to know where to look.
If you ever get it, rewrite this article. Until then mmfa is no different than the right-wing haters they constantly complain about. The credibility of this site hangs in the balance of being able to provide proof for claims they make. If they can't then EVERY article they write can be assumed to be another piece of missinformation designed to promote hate within our nation.
Can they provide that proof? Let's wait and see what the owners of this site will do.
I am not "telling" you that one of the articles that YOU cited incorrectly was 9 months old - it WAS, undeniably, 9 months old! You're the one who demonstrated poor reading comprehension!!!
What a tool. How do you manage to get yourself out of bed in the morning with how ignorant AND stupid you clearly are?
Let's see, dell, the Iraq war was started because "the best we can GET" information was that Saddam "supposedly" had WMD's. We started a war based on that "supposed" information that was assumed to be FACT.
Now, dell is saying that kind of information is all that is needed to act upon. Well, it looks like you just lost another reason to call the Iraq war unjustified.
You know, you're right on one thing, when someone bases all their claims on unproven heresay, then they sure look stupid when asked to prove what they claim.
You see, a "spokesman" speaks for someone else. The "spokesman" doesn't make up things, or the "spokesman" won't be a "spokesman" for much longer.
And intelligence, which are educated guesses, are NOT equivalent to the statements made by a spokesperson for the President saying that the President will be paid for a speaking engagement. Guesses about something one cannot see for sure aren't the same as statements made by someone who KNOWS!!!
What a fool you continue to prove yourself to be!
Right, and that's my point. When you have proof that he "was" paid I'd like to see it. If all you have is proof that he "will" be paid, then you have NO proof of payment being made. You only have proof that someday he will get paid for his speeches. The only problem is CLAIMS OF FACT are being made that he HAS been paid, but no proof of that has been provided.
I like how you call ME a troll for going off-topic, but don't say a word about the very first poster who went off-topic during his entire statement, without a word about the current article. Got any ideas on why that would happen?
Just like not all occasions when one person kills another is first degree murder, intent is relevant!!!
Not all off-topic posts are equal.
But the very FIRST poster didn't go off-topic anyway. The very first poster was talking about the motivation behind covering for Bush in this way and other ways too. That's not off-topic.
If you're going to use analogies, try using ones that relate. Or, let the whiney nerzog defend himself (herself). Since he (she) isn't capable of doing anything more than troll, I can understand why he (she) doesn't try. He's (she's) obviously moved on to the next article to troll through.
But it was good to know you can admit to being a hypocrit when asked.
The first poster talked about revisionist history trying to make Bush look better than he actually deserves to look!!!
And this claim that he's not doing any speeches for money is doing that same thing.
I didn't miss anything. You're the fool who clearly doesn't have very good reading comprehension!
And I'm not a hypocrite. Ever.
See, I told you that's what he said. There is NOTHING in his statement that relates it to this article. NOTHING! So, yes, you are clearly a hypocrit this time and 'supposedly' many other times.
"But, that won't stop the whinos from whining about the man who saved the world from ... WMD's that the democrats whined about in 98."
_________
Saved the world from WMD's? What WMD's? Are you referring to the WMD's that Bush swore we had ironclad proof that Saddam Hussein had in Iraq? The WMD's the U.S. invaded a country over? The WMD's that have cost us thousands of U.S. lives & billions of tax dollars occupying Iraq over these past seven years?The WMD's that have us bogged down in a seemingly endless quagmire there right now(because if we just left it would lead to anarchy in Iraq that would destabilize the entire Middle East)? The WMD's that never actually existed in the first place? The WMD's that even George W. Bush had to admit years ago did not exist? Are those the WMD's you're talking about Floyd?
You really should try keeping up with current events Floyd (and history too-the WMD's you think Bush saved us all from were exposed as a hoax YEARS ago).THEY NEVER REALLY EXISTED FLOYD!And might I suggest that you broaden your sources of "information" a little if you do decide to actually keep up with what's going on in the world.A steady diet of Rush + Glenn Beck, Bill OhReally, and the rest of the propaganda machine at Faux(that's the French word for fake Floyd) News has been proven to cause severe brain damage.