Bush considering Ohioan for Commerce secretary

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Link
WASHINGTON ? A top contender to become the next Commerce secretary is a Cincinnati-area businessman who raised $260 million for President Bush?s re-election campaign and is credited with helping him win Ohio?s electoral votes that clinched the election.

Mercer Reynolds III, an occasional overnight guest at the White House and Camp David whom the president nicknamed ?Merce,? served as the president?s campaign finance chairman this year, filling a post that outgoing Commerce Secretary Don Evans held in 2000.


Evans, a close friend of Bush?s for more than three decades, announced his resignation this week, saying it was time for him to return to Texas. Reynolds, meanwhile, has been widely mentioned as a possible replacement for Evans at the helm of the nation?s agency responsible for employment, international trade, civil rights, patents and the census.

?It?s something that would fit very well with his background and experience,? said Bob Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party and a friend of Reynolds.

Bennett said besides owning shares in numerous companies, being an adept fund-raiser for Republicans and having served as ambassador to Switzerland, a key strength is that Reynolds works hard: If no one?s around to do what needs to be done, he does it himself.

?The weekend before the election, when everyone was nervous, Mercer Reynolds showed up in my office to do volunteer phone calls.? Bennett said. ?He really surprised me. I said, ?Mercer, what are you doing here?? He said, ?I came to help out.? ?

Reynolds and his wife, Gabrielle, spent all day calling Bush supporters, Bennett said.

For Bush?s 2004 re-election campaign, Reynolds and his wife hosted first lady Laura Bush for a fund-raiser at their home in Indian Hills, an affluent suburb of Cincinnati. The couple also hosted the president for an event in Greensboro, Ga., where they own a lakeside development in known as Reynolds Plantation and a nearby Ritz Carlton hotel.

Friends of Reynolds in Georgia say he?s a ?no nonsense? guy who has a good character.

?He?s well liked and respected here,? said Carey Williams, editor of Greensboro Herald-Journal and a longtime Reynolds friend. ?He?s a quiet man. He doesn?t make any noise. He wields a big stick and he?s just a good person.? Reynolds, originally from Chattanooga, Tenn., came to Cincinnati to oversee a Coca-Cola bottling franchise. He was running an oil company with business partner Bill DeWitt in 1980 when a friend from Midland, Texas, introduced him to Bush, who also owned an oil company. They eventually merged their companies, then invested together in the Texas Rangers baseball team.

When Bush ran for president in 2000, the two raised $3 million for the campaign, cast votes as electors for Ohio, and co-chaired the president?s inauguration committee.

Bush rewarded Reynolds with the Switzerland ambassadorship, a post Reynolds stepped down from to work on the re-election campaign. Reynolds? wife, meanwhile, was recently nominated by Bush to serve on the board of trustees at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Switzerland is one of the world?s biggest financial centers. Reynolds? experience dealing with international trade issues there would be an asset to his nomination, Bennett said.

John Green, director of the University of Akron?s Ray C. Bliss Institute for Applied Politics, said a Reynolds nomination also would benefit from the good reputation he has with the business community and the fact that he?s devoted to Bush.

?The most important thing when assembling an administration is loyalty,? Green said. ?But when people are being rewarded for political support, they also have to have the necessary skills to carry out the job and carry out the president?s policies. It would appear that Mr. Reynolds is someone who has those skills.?

White House spokesman Jim Morrell declined to speculate about whether the president would select Reynolds for the post. He said an announcement would be made soon.

?The president has tremendous respect for Mercer Reynolds and appreciates the job he did on the campaign,? Morrell said.
Hmm...who cares if he's qualified for the post, just so long as he's able to raise a lot of money for the Bush campaign.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Mercer Reynolds was owner of Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation which in 1984 saved Dubya's bacon when Dubya's Arbusto Oil Company was failing. As part of the deal Dubya became Spectrum's President. Spectrum was in turn bought up by Harken after Spectrum run into trouble two years later with Bush at the helm.
 

rufruf44

Platinum Member
May 8, 2001
2,002
0
0
Geesh, you people are just hell-bend on looking it at the negatives aren't you? He's a highly succesful businessman, he's a former ambassador to the financial center of the world, has good reputation among business community, I say he got qualification for the job.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: rufruf44
Geesh, you people are just hell-bend on looking it at the negatives aren't you? He's a highly succesful businessman, he's a former ambassador to the financial center of the world, has good reputation among business community, I say he got qualification for the job.
hell-bent? Took me about 3 seconds to come across that article. Wouldn't call that "hell-bent" in the slightest.


What I find "hell-bent" is the apologist stance the Bush-God fanbois take to divert any discussion of improprieties, secrecy and outright deception by this administration.
 

rufruf44

Platinum Member
May 8, 2001
2,002
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: rufruf44
Geesh, you people are just hell-bend on looking it at the negatives aren't you? He's a highly succesful businessman, he's a former ambassador to the financial center of the world, has good reputation among business community, I say he got qualification for the job.
hell-bent? Took me about 3 seconds to come across that article. Wouldn't call that "hell-bent" in the slightest.

What I find "hell-bent" is the apologist stance the Bush-God fanbois take to divert any discussion of improprieties, secrecy and outright deception by this administration.

Who's diverting discussions? What I find amusing is some people are so intent to find negativity about this government with their every post. Everything you posted here is 100% negative toward the administration. Take this post for example. This guy is just a candidate and not even appointed yet, and never mind he has the credentials to do it, yet you immediately steered toward the negative side, as it evident in your OP where you purposedly bolded the fact that has negative conotation. If you think this guy is not qualified, then by all mean please state why. From what I seen, he's pretty qualified for the job and just because he's big fund raiser to the administration, eyebrow need to be raised??

I'm far from a supporter of dubya but I can imagine with this kind of backlashing as a tool, how Rove able to muster the right to comes in flock and win the election for the elephants.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: rufruf44
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: rufruf44
Geesh, you people are just hell-bend on looking it at the negatives aren't you? He's a highly succesful businessman, he's a former ambassador to the financial center of the world, has good reputation among business community, I say he got qualification for the job.
hell-bent? Took me about 3 seconds to come across that article. Wouldn't call that "hell-bent" in the slightest.

What I find "hell-bent" is the apologist stance the Bush-God fanbois take to divert any discussion of improprieties, secrecy and outright deception by this administration.
Who's diverting discussions? What I find amusing is some people are so intent to find negativity about this government with their every post. Everything you posted here is 100% negative toward the administration. Take this post for example. This guy is just a candidate and not even appointed yet, and never mind he has the credentials to do it, yet you immediately steered toward the negative side, as it evident in your OP where you purposedly bolded the fact that has negative conotation. If you think this guy is not qualified, then by all mean please state why. From what I seen, he's pretty qualified for the job and just because he's big fund raiser to the administration, eyebrow need to be raised??

I'm far from a supporter of dubya but I can imagine with this kind of backlashing as a tool, how Rove able to muster the right to comes in flock and win the election for the elephants.
Why does he have the credentials? Because he raised a quarter of a billion dollars for the Bush campaign? He's Don Evans, Jr.

Whatever happened to an interview process? A selection process? An open and candid process involving "reaching out" to the other side? Well, that would go against anything Bush has done since office.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: rufruf44
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: rufruf44
Geesh, you people are just hell-bend on looking it at the negatives aren't you? He's a highly succesful businessman, he's a former ambassador to the financial center of the world, has good reputation among business community, I say he got qualification for the job.
hell-bent? Took me about 3 seconds to come across that article. Wouldn't call that "hell-bent" in the slightest.

What I find "hell-bent" is the apologist stance the Bush-God fanbois take to divert any discussion of improprieties, secrecy and outright deception by this administration.
Who's diverting discussions? What I find amusing is some people are so intent to find negativity about this government with their every post. Everything you posted here is 100% negative toward the administration. Take this post for example. This guy is just a candidate and not even appointed yet, and never mind he has the credentials to do it, yet you immediately steered toward the negative side, as it evident in your OP where you purposedly bolded the fact that has negative conotation. If you think this guy is not qualified, then by all mean please state why. From what I seen, he's pretty qualified for the job and just because he's big fund raiser to the administration, eyebrow need to be raised??

I'm far from a supporter of dubya but I can imagine with this kind of backlashing as a tool, how Rove able to muster the right to comes in flock and win the election for the elephants.
Why does he have the credentials? Because he raised a quarter of a billion dollars for the Bush campaign? He's Don Evans, Jr.

Whatever happened to an interview process? A selection process? An open and candid process involving "reaching out" to the other side? Well, that would go against anything Bush has done since office.
Running away from the truth?

Let's see...

Bush wants a campaign fund raiser to be Commerce Secretary.
Bush wants the new Attorney General to be someone who finds the Geneva Conventions as "quaint".
Bush wants anyone disloyal to his agenda out of the CIA.

I wonder how much more of this "reaching out" our country can take.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Running away from the truth?

Let's see...

Bush wants a campaign fund raiser to be Commerce Secretary.
Bush wants the new Attorney General to be someone who finds the Geneva Conventions as "quaint".
Bush wants anyone disloyal to his agenda out of the CIA.

I wonder how much more of this "reaching out" our country can take.
I think the Dub has confused reaching out with the old "Reach Around"
 

Brackis

Banned
Nov 14, 2004
2,863
0
0
The saddest part is that this guy is from Ohio. If he was such a good businessman and cared for America maybe he could have helped his state not lose over a million jobs in the past 3 years.
 

MidasKnight

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2004
3,288
0
76
Take this post for example. This guy is just a candidate and not even appointed yet, and never mind he has the credentials to do it, yet you immediately steered toward the negative side,



That sums it up for the OP on this forum. Once in a while some good posts but mostly negative looks at President Bush. But, this is nothing new .... sadly ....
 

slyedog

Senior member
Jan 12, 2001
934
0
0
he helped bush win the election. but i guess you would rather have bush put in michael moore or
jessie jackson. poor libs another four years of doom and gloom
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
Take this post for example. This guy is just a candidate and not even appointed yet, and never mind he has the credentials to do it, yet you immediately steered toward the negative side,



That sums it up for the OP on this forum. Once in a while some good posts but mostly negative looks at President Bush. But, this is nothing new .... sadly ....

Do you expect any better from an anti-Bush fanatic?

His vision is clouded by his hatred.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: conjurHmm...who cares if he's qualified for the post, just so long as he's able to raise a lot of money for the Bush campaign.

Ok - Have the Dems put forward other recommendations that will also be acceptable to the Repubs.

Is it possible that many of Clinton's selections were political driven vs 100% qualified by Repub standards.

Neither side is ever happy when they lose; therefore they will gripe that selectees are not qualified (in their biased) opinion to hold the office.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Brackis
The saddest part is that this guy is from Ohio. If he was such a good businessman and cared for America maybe he could have helped his state not lose over a million jobs in the past 3 years.

And how would he do that other than creating jobs within a company that he controls.

Name one business that can control 1 million jobs within a state (with the exception of the Fed/State government.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: conjur
Running away from the truth?

Let's see...

Bush wants a campaign fund raiser to be Commerce Secretary.
Bush wants the new Attorney General to be someone who finds the Geneva Conventions as "quaint".
Bush wants anyone disloyal to his agenda out of the CIA.

I wonder how much more of this "reaching out" our country can take.
I think the Dub has confused reaching out with the old "Reach Around"
Ain't that the truth.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: conjurHmm...who cares if he's qualified for the post, just so long as he's able to raise a lot of money for the Bush campaign.

Ok - Have the Dems put forward other recommendations that will also be acceptable to the Repubs.

Is it possible that many of Clinton's selections were political driven vs 100% qualified by Repub standards.

Neither side is ever happy when they lose; therefore they will gripe that selectees are not qualified (in their biased) opinion to hold the office.
I don't recall this being about Clinton. He's been out of office for four years and you're still obsessing with him?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: conjurHmm...who cares if he's qualified for the post, just so long as he's able to raise a lot of money for the Bush campaign.

Ok - Have the Dems put forward other recommendations that will also be acceptable to the Repubs.

Is it possible that many of Clinton's selections were political driven vs 100% qualified by Repub standards.

Neither side is ever happy when they lose; therefore they will gripe that selectees are not qualified (in their biased) opinion to hold the office.
I don't recall this being about Clinton. He's been out of office for four years and you're still obsessing with him?

It is the fact that you are complaining about qualifications.

If the qualification is to be political driven, then what is good for the Dems is also good for the Repubs.

If the qualifications are what is needed to perform the job, then show why the selectee does not meet the rquirements.

And then propose some one who may be better qualified and is acceptable to the elected administration.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: conjurHmm...who cares if he's qualified for the post, just so long as he's able to raise a lot of money for the Bush campaign.

Ok - Have the Dems put forward other recommendations that will also be acceptable to the Repubs.

Is it possible that many of Clinton's selections were political driven vs 100% qualified by Repub standards.

Neither side is ever happy when they lose; therefore they will gripe that selectees are not qualified (in their biased) opinion to hold the office.
I don't recall this being about Clinton. He's been out of office for four years and you're still obsessing with him?
It is the fact that you are complaining about qualifications.

If the qualification is to be political driven, then what is good for the Dems is also good for the Repubs.

If the qualifications are what is needed to perform the job, then show why the selectee does not meet the rquirements.

And then propose some one who may be better qualified and is acceptable to the elected administration.
How is this guy qualified? What process could have been undertaken so quickly to brainstorm who could be the best candidates for this position and then begun to interview the candidates?

NONE.

This guy is being considered for one reason and one reason only:
A top contender to become the next Commerce secretary is a Cincinnati-area businessman who raised $260 million for President Bush?s re-election campaign and is credited with helping him win Ohio?s electoral votes that clinched the election.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: conjurHmm...who cares if he's qualified for the post, just so long as he's able to raise a lot of money for the Bush campaign.

Ok - Have the Dems put forward other recommendations that will also be acceptable to the Repubs.

Is it possible that many of Clinton's selections were political driven vs 100% qualified by Repub standards.

Neither side is ever happy when they lose; therefore they will gripe that selectees are not qualified (in their biased) opinion to hold the office.
I don't recall this being about Clinton. He's been out of office for four years and you're still obsessing with him?
It is the fact that you are complaining about qualifications.

If the qualification is to be political driven, then what is good for the Dems is also good for the Repubs.

If the qualifications are what is needed to perform the job, then show why the selectee does not meet the rquirements.

And then propose some one who may be better qualified and is acceptable to the elected administration.
How is this guy qualified? What process could have been undertaken so quickly to brainstorm who could be the best candidates for this position and then begun to interview the candidates?

NONE.

This guy is being considered for one reason and one reason only:
A top contender to become the next Commerce secretary is a Cincinnati-area businessman who raised $260 million for President Bush?s re-election campaign and is credited with helping him win Ohio?s electoral votes that clinched the election.

This guy is being considered for one reason and one reason only:

Proof?
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
"John Green, director of the University of Akron's Ray C. Bliss Institute for Applied Politics, said a Reynolds nomination also would benefit from the good reputation he has with the business community and the fact that he's devoted to Bush.

"The most important thing when assembling an administration is loyalty," Green said. "But when people are being rewarded for political support, they also have to have the necessary skills to carry out the job and carry out the president's policies. It would appear that Mr. Reynolds is someone who has those skills.""

Link
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: conjurHow is this guy qualified? What process could have been undertaken so quickly to brainstorm who could be the best candidates for this position and then begun to interview the candidates?

NONE.

This guy is being considered for one reason and one reason only:
A top contender to become the next Commerce secretary is a Cincinnati-area businessman who raised $260 million for President Bush?s re-election campaign and is credited with helping him win Ohio?s electoral votes that clinched the election.

Please explain why this personis not qualified.

One does not have to be the best qualified person for a upper level cabinet position. Most positions are not filled by the best qualified person, most do not want the hassle of public service.

They are filled by people considered to be qualified to do the job and support the administration's policies.

It is up to the Senate to determine if such a person is not qualified for the position.
And it is the American people that choose the Senate.