Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

No foreign policy section?

Due to revert it's now non-existant. Hcobb (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No comment? We have consensus to restore then? Hcobb (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Hcobb most of your edits to the BLP's of Republican politicians are inflammatory, many are blatantly inaccurate, and your edit commentary indicates that your edits are intended to be disruptive. Please see m:What is a troll?.CFredkin (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You do not indicate what it is in the WP story that I was incorrect about. Please add in your summary of that article so that I can learn from it. Hcobb (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
CFredkin, I want to remind you about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Bush's comments about his brother's influence on him were widely reported and I believe they should be included in that section. Hcobb is not a troll because he wants to add widely-reported content. That said, I don't think the entire section should be that one comment. Let's keep that comment and then expand the section. Does that sound good? PrairieKid (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The statements are not supported by the sources provided:

Bush didn't say that the war on Iraq was necessary, and he didn't say that the lack of focus on security after the invasion was a "blunder". Also, he didn't say that George W. Bush would be his advisor on policy in the Middle East.

Statements on WP need to be supported by the sources provided per WP: verifiability.CFredkin (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed I think it was fine how it was with the sources but I made some slight adjustments to better fit the sources. Better? PrairieKid (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:PrairieKid, the source you added indicated that there was confusion from sources as to whether Bush referred to Israel or the Middle East. It also says the following: 'Bush spokesman Tim Miller said in a statement to CNN: "Gov. Bush deeply respects his brother's service to this country and in response to a question about James Baker and Israel, he reiterated that he looks to his brother whose stalwart support for our ally is in line with his commitment to standing with Israel in the face of great threats to their security and our own."' Don't you think Bush himself is the best source regarding his political positions?CFredkin (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I edited the article to clarify that. In the speech, he said Middle East. Later, he clarified it was just Israel. Sound good? PrairieKid (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. That works. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

Now there is an update from Jeb. I'm suspending myself from editing on BLP pages so could somebody please note this change, if warranted?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/jeb-bush-iraq-war_n_7268096.html “I interpreted the question wrong, I guess," Bush said, referring to his interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly. "I don’t know what that decision would have been -- that’s a hypothetical. Simple fact is, mistakes were made."

Is there agreement that the article is now incorrect in stating that he definitely would have ordered the invasion? Hcobb (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

And Jeb has updated again. Please fix. http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/politics/jeb-bush-iraq-2016/ Hcobb (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Cuba

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/02/18/jeb-bush-calls-obama-administration-foreign-policy-weak-and-unfocused/

Is it worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Growing Senior Population and the growing Alzheimer's Diagnoses Are we ready?

'I have early onset Alzheimer's.There are 6 types that are identified at this time. There is no cure I have a rare type.Most are just unbreallead under Alzheimer's. We need to get this issue out of the shame closet. The same closet we had with Cancer in the 1950's. It just wasn't talked about in polite company. I have spent my medical career in different specialties. I had to find my niche. I did in Assisted Living Medical Care and Pharmacology for residents in our memory care units. They taught me more about life, love, joy, comfort and heartache. The very things that make a person a great person and a good Christian. You can not learn this in a book or symposiums. You come to learn with your heart open and your mind clear. I drew a blank page and started my own interests with them. They are all just sitting there in a wet depends or two {illegal}. TV turned on loud and It was giving me a headache. Or a radio that played music from a time if they can,but don't want to remember what they can't do. One day after church i came in and they had to hear all about the church service and a joke or two. I started moving around got right into close to each one sometimes on laps, just like you would do at home. I always wore bright scrubs. you eyesight declines as the disease progress's I put on a Madonna CD on and I started dancing and grabbed a brush and sang along. Mr. Governor Jeb Bush. It was like someone went into a scary dark room and turned on the bright spotlight. They would get up and move! This is a BIG deal. We had walkers going, some moving in the chairs, and the smiles and then...their eyes lit up. Sir to me that was one of the best days of my life. I am in a position to talk from both sides of this insidious disease.I listen to caregiver's and they have little or no knowledge of what to do. They feel guilty of missing a day,or never coming at all I by Gods grace was able to tell them from my heart what I would do and had to do for both of my parents. They started to see improvements. Little things, I had a bag of dollar store special things for each lady and for gentleman. The costs to place someone is outrageous. The families are rushed through the process so quickly . not knowing that those personal items were not included. Sir: I am just going on so much because of my unique situation, of having views from both sides. I am still cognitive to help in this cause. We need to bring this to the for front. It just isn't our seniors, I have seen beautiful women around 39 in decline. I would like to help you in any way if you so choose to run. I would love if you considered this need I have to do. It is calling me Thank You very much if you even get to read this. CarolAnn Clement.....carolpchs@comcast.net Bold text' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:A180:6D00:359A:2B5A:E17B:5094 (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent major edits

I object to these edits by Anythingyouwant as introducing a non-neutral tone to the article. I'm concerned about using catch phrases like "traditional marriage"; over use of non-objective and self-serving quotes from Bush concerning climate change, education, and LGBT rights; WP:MOS issues such as "Mr. Bush"; and phrasing like "Overall, the former governor believes...". Some of the changes may be OK, but I suggest that they be introduced in smaller pieces and discussed here.- MrX 11:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

All of the changes were cited to two sources: a piece in the New York Times, and a piece from PBS. Considering the amount of thoroughly unobjectionable material, I suggest it was a mistake for Mr. X to blank all of that substantive material because of language like "Mr. Bush" and "traditional marriage" and "the governor believes" which is the sort of bland language used throughout the cited pieces. It is extremely dull to keep saying Bush's position is this, Bush's position is that, and hence some variety of language is extremely common. I am unaware of any style guide that has the slightest thing to say about it, and would like Mr. X to explain. In any event, you cannot expect Wikipedia editors to spend large amounts of volunteer time conscientiously updating articles if all of their substantive edits are undone based upon phantom, unsubstantiated, stylistic objections.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Remember, your edits are still in history, so your effort is not lost. I suggest that we discuss them section by section. Also, you have taken the minor point of my argument and suggested that it's my whole argument. In fact, the central concern is one of neutrality. I don't think you should have restore the material until we could at least discuss it (WP:BRD).- MrX 14:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
If you can find one section as an example of nonneutrality and justify it here, that would be a plausible approach. You have not done so, instead giving specifics only as to the style issue I mentioned above. I deny nonneutrality.,Anythingyouwant (talk), 14:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This

    "According to a statement by Bush in April 2015, “The climate is changing, and I’m concerned about that”. He added that, “we need to work with the rest of the world to negotiate a way to reduce carbon emissions," while cautioning against “the hollowing out of our industrial core, the hollowing out of our ability to compete in an increasingly competitive world.”"

    is puffery, and placing it at the beginning of the section gives it undue prominence.
  • This

    "He has said this about the Common Core initiative: “Raising expectations and having accurate assessments of where kids are is essential for success." However, he opposes using federal funds to coerce states into adopting Common Core."

    is puffery, devoid of any substance.
  • This

    "Mr. Bush says he believes in “traditional marriage” and that marriage is between a man and a woman, but appears open to some form of recognition for same-sex relationships."

    Is stylistically aberrant, and the words "traditional marriage" are not neutral, giving undue weight to a euphamism that means "against same marriage".
  • This

    "We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law....I hope that we can show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue — including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty."

    is spin doctoring of the most obvious kind.
The content that you changed alternately refers to the subject as Bush, Jeb Bush, and Mr. Bush. Hopefully I don't have to explain why that's not correct.- MrX 15:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Climate change

I will respond to your four specific objections one at a time, Mr. X. You say that the following material in the Wikipedia article “is puffery, and placing it at the beginning of the section gives it undue prominence”:

I emphatically disagree with your assessment. This material is taken from Mullany, Gerry. "Jeb Bush on the Issues", The New York Times (June 5, 2015). The material in the NYT is in a section titled “Environment”, and here is the entirety of that section:

It is obvious that the material in the Wikipedia article closely tracks the NYT. Moreover, it accurately conveys the idea that Bush is not a climate “denier” but rather acknowledges that there is a real issue, while he emphasizes that there are dangers in overreacting. You may disagree with his position, Mr. X, but it most certainly is not puffery. After this general outline, the Wikipedia article then gets more specific and addresses much older statements by Bush (to which you have not objected): "In 2011, Bush discussed the scientific opinion on climate change, stating 'I think global warming may be real,' but 'It is not unanimous among scientists that it is disproportionately manmade. What I get a little tired of on the left is this idea that somehow science has decided all this so you can’t have a view.'[6] His views about the degree to which climate change is caused by humans conflicts with the scientific consensus.[7][8]" The subsection is well-balanced.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: “The climate is changing, and I’m concerned about that” is a platitude. It doesn't convey information. Especially when we are trying to neutrally present his positions on various issues, it should be mostly factual, meaty, third-party analysis. If he says something profound, then we should quote it, but we should not fill the article with sound bites. Why not just say that "he acknowledges climate change, but opposes actions that he considers detrimental to our ability to compete globally?"- MrX 16:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
"The climate is changing, and I’m concerned about that" is equivalent to your paraphrase "he acknowledges climate change". I don't see that one is better than the other, and the cited sources quote him directly on this. Quoting him directly will prevent quibbling here later on about what he actually said or meant, and give voters who hate platitudes an opportunity to opt (e.g.) for Rubio or, yes, Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
If you are editing this article for voters, we have a bigger problem. I give a hoot what voters may think or may not think, our work here is to write an encyclopedic article about Bush's political views. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Marriage

Mr. X says that the following material, “Is stylistically aberrant, and the words ‘traditional marriage’ are not neutral, giving undue weight to a euphemism that means ‘against same marriage’”:

This is the first sentence of three paragraphs in the Wikipedia article on this subject. Again, Footnote [5] is Mullany, Gerry. "Jeb Bush on the Issues", The New York Times (June 5, 2015). Footnote [3] is Wellford, Rachel. “What does Jeb Bush believe? Where the candidate stands on 11 issues”, PBS (June 15, 2015). The material cited to footnote [5] is from a section titled “Same-sex marriage” where the NYT says this and nothing more (emphasis added):

Footnote [3] is also from a section titled “Social Issues” where PBS says this and nothing more about marriage:

As you can see, the words “traditional marriage” are not in the voice of Wikipedia, but rather are attributed to Bush, just as they are attributed to Bush by the NYT. The reader can therefore conclude that Bush is speaking euphemistically, or not. Why would we use quotes if it was in the voice of Wikipedia? If the NYT is stylistically aberrant then maybe we should stop treating them as a reliable source? The voice of Wikipedia is very clear and wikilinked later in this subsection of the Wikipedia article: same-sex marriage.

Mr.X adds that the following material in the Wikipedia article “is spin doctoring of the most obvious kind”:

Yet almost all of it is verbatim in the NYT piece, and all of it is also at footnote [12] which is Miller, Zeke. "Jeb Bush Urges ‘Respect’ for Florida Gay-Marriage Ruling, but Declines Specifics", Time Magazine (January 5, 2015). Mr. Bush is urging respect for gay couples, which is quite contrary to the image of Republicans as homophobic gay-bashers, so why not follow Time Magazine and the NYT here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The "traditional marriage" euphemism doesn't fly here, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Attributing it only makes it clearer that it's self-serving for Mr. Bush. I don't object to making it clear that Bush has softened his views on LGBT rights recently, but it must be in the context of his overall record, which while not overtly homophobic, is demonstrably anti-LGBT-rights. Further, while I don't object to the quality of the sources, I do object to over-relying on such a narrow selection of sources for Bush's political positions. I will attempt to wordsmith this section to reflect my concerns.- MrX 19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I see, User: MrX. So when a political figure uses a euphemism that you don't like or that Wikipedians in general dislike, then that entitles us to delete any quotation that uses the term, whether it's in the New York Times or not. I find your position rather frightening, Mr. X. You seem to be also censoring views sympathetic to gay rights that you don't think Bush deserves to express nowadays given his past record. I will restore some of the material you have deleted. Our goal here is to present a neutral view of his position.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
"Traditional marriage" is value laden, doesn't accurately describe the subject's position which is has nothing to do with abating the alarming divorce rate, and has everything to do with opposing equal rights under the law. My edits have nothing to do with censoring anything, nor do understand why you find my position frightening. Please observe WP:BRD. Edit warring is not the way forward.- MrX 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The subject's own words do not accurately describe the subject's position? Please.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
No, sometimes, unfortunately, they don't.- MrX 03:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The chances of that are very slim where multiple reliable sources include the direct quotes in a self-explanatory way. Anyway, this article has developed pretty fast. Thanks for the collaboration.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Education

According to Mr. X, the following material is “puffery, devoid of any substance”:

Footnote [5] is Mullany, Gerry. "Jeb Bush on the Issues", The New York Times (June 5, 2015). Footnote [3] is Wellford, Rachel. “What does Jeb Bush believe? Where the candidate stands on 11 issues”, PBS (June 15, 2015). The material cited to footnote [5] is from a section titled “Education” where the NYT says this and nothing more:

Footnote [3] is also from a section titled “Education” where PBS says this and nothing more:

As you can see, Bush has said that while he supports Common Core, he opposes coercing states to comply with Common Core (which I condensed and rephrased from “opposes using federal funds to motivate or force states to adopt Common Core”). This is a highly nuanced position, indicative that he intends to use the presidency as a bully pulpit, without binding federal laws that force the states into compliance. While you may disagree with his position, it most certainly is not described here in this Wikipedia article using any puffery whatsoever. Bush’s statement about “accurate assessments” is an accurate assessment of what Common Core is, and spares us the need to explain.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reworded and condensed this section slightly, taking into account your comments above. Please let me know if it has lost any meaning or nuance.- MrX 10:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bush, Jeb Bush, and Mr. Bush

Mr. X says, "The content that you changed alternately refers to the subject as Bush, Jeb Bush, and Mr. Bush. Hopefully I don't have to explain why that's not correct." I'm afraid you do, because it looks perfectly innocuous to me. I don't find any of your objections to the recent edits to be policy-based, thus far.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The applicable guideline is MOS:SURNAME. It's a widely-accepted practice in Wikipedia biographies.- MrX 19:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the wikilink. One of their prime examples is Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester. Check out how many times that article uses "Robert Dudley" instead of "Dudley" even though the guideline says "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Too many quotes

This is not Wikiquote, we as editors should paraphrase quotes as a way to keep this article encyclopedic. One or two quotes may be OK, but not for each section. I have started that process, please join me in doing the work. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If the New York Times or PBS includes full quotes, we can too. We are not violating Bush's copyright. Waht we need to make sure of is that we paraphrase rather than copy sentences from news outlets. Direct quotes are extremely useful because they avoid later quibbling about what he really said or meant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
We are doing pretty well so far, the article is much improved and readable now. Thanks for the collaboration! - Cwobeel (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory statement?

In February 2015 he said that legal status and avoiding deportation should require immigrants to pay fines, get work permits, pay taxes, not receive government assistance, learn English, and not commit crimes.[5] When an immigrant who came to the United States without documentation does any one of those things, then Bush apparently favors deportation: “Any of those things that you do would be a deportable offense.”[5]

The way this reads is that an immigrant pays taxes, learns English and get a work permit ("any one of those things") is a deportable offense? It does not make sense as written. 18:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that wording needs fixing.- MrX 19:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Immigration

We ought to present not only Bush's latest comments on immigration, but also the evolution of his positions over the last few years.

2013

BUSH: My view has been that, in order to get comprehensive reform, we could take either path; either a path to citizenship or a path to legalization. The important point is that illegal immigrants should not get better benefits at a lower cost than people that have been waiting patiently. So assume we pass the law this year--and I hope that's the case--five years from now we should. Source: Meet the Press 2013 series on 2016 presidential hopefuls , Mar 10, 2013

Bush, speaking at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference, made a pitch for immigration reform, saying America needs more new workers to help pay for retirees--"to rebuild the demographic pyramid" as he put it. "Immigrants are more fertile," Bush said. "And they love families and they have more intact families, and they bring a younger population. Immigrants create an engine of economic prosperity." Source: PolitiFact 2013 fact-checking on 2016 presidential hopefuls , Jun 18, 2013

Q: For years you supported a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Now, according to your book, you no longer support that, but support a path to legal residency. Why have you changed?

BUSH: I haven't changed. The book was written to try to create a blueprint for conservatives that were reluctant to embrace comprehensive reform, to give them, perhaps, a set of views that they could embrace. I support a path to legalization or citizenship so long as the path for people that have been waiting patiently is easier and costs less, the legal entrance to our country, than illegal entrance. The worst thing that we could do is to pass a set of laws and have the exact same problem we had in the late 1980s, where there was not the enforcement and it was easier to come legally than illegally. Source: CBS Face the Nation 2013 series: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Mar 10, 2013

2014

"Yes, they broke the law, but it's not a felony. It's an act of love, it's an act of commitment to your family," Bush said. "I honestly think that is a different kind of crime, that there should be a price paid, but it shouldn't rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families. I think we need to kind of get beyond the harsh political rhetoric to a better place." Bush acknowledged that his comments would be recorded. "So be it," he said before discussing immigration reform, an area where he splits from many in the Republican Party in lobbying for a comprehensive overhaul. Source: CNN Politicker, "Act of love" , Apr 7, 2014

- Cwobeel (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

    • I would agree that we should include shifts in position over the years, Neutralitytalk 22:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with showing shifts through the years, but each section ought to start out with the present position so readers don't have to hunt for it. That's the way I've edited this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We can only present shifts in position if a RS observes they occurred. We can't conduct WP:OR to string together two separate sources and independently identify a shift in position. BlueSalix (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
We don't have to present any shifts. Rather, present the information in a dated manner chronologically. This is an encyclopedic article, not a pamphlet for voters. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Not only don't we have to present shifts, we can't present shifts in the absence of RS. As for presenting dated information in a chronological manner, we don't do that in other facets of BLPs. The subject of a BLP's height, for instance, may change during the course of their lifetime but we don't list out "1983: John Smith was 5'8". 1984: John Smith was 5'9". 1985: John Smith was still 5'9"." We present terminal information unless RS offer us the opportunity to do otherwise (e.g. "John Smith was short growing up but received widespread publicity for a growth spurt he went through in 1984.") BlueSalix (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The article should certainly include past political positions as one would expect from an encyclopedia article that will (hopefully) be read long after Mr. Bush has died. However, I agree that we should not add our own conclusions that his positions have shifted. We can simply present the information chronologically and let the reader decide.- MrX 10:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Profiles in character

Here's the full quote that includes the snippet quoted in this Wikipedia article:

Profiles in Character, by Jeb Bush & B.Yablonski, p. 59-60 , Nov 1, 1995.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Most recent position first

I said above that I have no problem with showing shifts through the years, but each section ought to start out with the present position so readers don't have to hunt for it. That's the way I've edited this article. Does anyone disagree with this?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Agreed This will be most comprehensible to the reader. BlueSalix (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looking at some other similar articles like Political positions of Mitt Romney, Political positions of Barack Obama, Political positions of John McCain, and Political positions of Rick Perry it seems the convention is to use a chronological arrangement. That would also be in accord with how we write biographies. That said, I do see some value to Anythingyouwant's suggestion of listing the current position first, but I can't reconcile it with how we would list past positions. Listing everything in reverse chronological order seems like it would be add odds with similar articles, and possibly confusing to our readers.- MrX 11:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
After the present position is stated, then the individual editor could choose to do a chronological presentation, or a reverse-chronological presentation, or whichever way the editor thinks would be most clear.It's a standard method of writing to first state the bottom line or conclusion, and then explain how that developed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Chronological. This is an encyclopedic article, not a pamphlet. If we think of the reader, then chronology is what is called for. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
No one has suggested that it is a pamphlet. All good writers of non-fiction set forth their conclusions in an introductory way, before developing in greater detail.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This is not a non-fiction book. This is an encyclopedic article. You can check some of the articles that MrX has noted to see how it is done. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope we can at least agree that this article should be non-fiction! I am quite familiar with how clear writing is done. Before overhauling the article, please get consensus. Every section currently begins with an overview of present position, and then elaborates about how the position may have changed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the approach you propose, it is a bloody waste of time. We could run an RFC, but I can assure you that the consensus would be to use a chronological presentation, because that is the standard and because it eliminates any bias issues. Same as we do when alphabetizing the political positions list. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I will start an RFC if you want, but alpabetization helps readers find what they want. Burying the current position does not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The article is a disaster as it stands. It makes for poor reading and it is unconventional. Go ahead and start an RFC, but please craft it carefully and neutrally. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

100.1.237.6

IP 100.1.237.6 sneaked in some vandalism. It's all reverted now, but I wanted to give everyone a heads up... Neutralitytalk 04:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for Feedback on Related Article

Pardon me for cross-linking here, however, the George P. Bush article is essentially devoid of life and I don't want to make this edit without feedback from others. Would anyone mind weighing-in? BlueSalix (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_positions_of_Jeb_Bush/Archive_1&oldid=681489986"