The Presidential Library of George, and Bill’s Foundation

All of these libraries are obscene, the money, the me-me-me idea of them, all
of it. Now I know each president has to have one. It’s tradition. But it really
now has gone over the top, mainly because we don’t know how they’re funded. After all, we are talking about the presidency. The same goes for foundations, regardless of the good they do.

Money is coming into George’s library and we don’t know the half of how and
who’s giving it. He’s also embroiled in a real face off with one local Texas
Methodist Church over the location. It’s been going on for quite some time.
Some Methodist ministers are against
the library location

Some Methodist ministers are making a final yet improbable attempt to stop
George W. Bush’s presidential library, museum and public policy institute
from being built at Southern Methodist University.

They say United Methodist law requires approval from the church’s South Central
Jurisdiction, whose 290 delegates meet in July. The opponents say at least
one-third of the delegates are against the Bush institute because it will
promote his administration’s policies that they feel conflict with church

George’s executive
Order 13233
protects the presidency now, shrouding so much in secrecy that
Bush has come to know and love. But there’s no disclosure of presidential libraries
either and this has got to change.

Second, there is the pesky issue of fund-raising. Following the corruptive
path blazed by White House predecessors, Mr. Bush and members of his library
committee apparently plan to spend the administration’s remaining days
trying to coax huge contributions to the budding library complex from friends
and well-heeled special interests. Under present law, the identity of presidential
library donors, and the amounts they contribute, need not be disclosed.

The George
W. Bush Library: Scholarly Mecca or $500 Million Oxymoron?

One of Hillary Clinton’s pledges is to reverse this presidential secrecy fetish,
which can’t come soon enough. But some people don’t trust she’ll do it. A story about her husband today likely makes people wonder about it all the more.

Today we’re reminded of the problems that can arise when it doesn’t happen.
The New York Times is reporting on a doozy of a foundation story about Bill. It’s embarrassing
for him. Hillary Clinton’s statement on the alleged Kazakhstan – Bill Clinton deal matters, which appears in the same article.

… .. Mrs. Clinton co-signed a commission letter to the State Department
that sounded “alarm bells” about the prospect that Kazakhstan
might head the group. The letter stated that Kazakhstan’s bid “would
not be acceptable,” citing “serious corruption,” canceled
elections and government control of the news media.

The rest of the article is about Bill, who denies helping Giustra get a mining
deal, or that the donation to his foundation had anything to do with their meeting. This also
has nothing to do with Mrs. Clinton, but she’ll get hit with it anyway. Frankly,
this is what weighs on many voters minds. It’s also what it looks like and people
aren’t willing to extend the benefit of the doubt and who can blame them. We’ve been burned by Bush, with negative stories about Bill worrisome, even as he moves towards more transparency on his foundation. The can she control her husband? line some are pushing comes to mind as well. The objections from Hillary Clinton about Kazakhsan’s bid indicates
she’s quite capable of separating herself from what her husband might do,
again, even though he denies any quid pro quo. The question is whether primary
voters will give her the chance.