George Bush senior

[NotHardUp1]

Did little to no harm, which these days is good enough for me. But he sired G.W. Jr., whose presidency was disastrous beyond any reckoning, and for that reason alone it would have been better had he never been born.

This, of course, and as usual, is both a gratuitous swipe at an absent and dead man, as well as not true. And, if you are English as your JUB name suggests, wish away the existence of your own politicians and soldiers, your Montgomeries and Mountbattens, your Harold Wilsons and your Enoch Powells. We are capable on this side of the pond of assessing the worth of our own just fine.

George Herbert Walker Bush did much good in this world, and in his life, did many things to serve his country, things that amounted to much more impact than simply opining about the leadership of the country from the anonymity of an online bulletin board for gays.

He was one of the youngest pilots in American military history. He volunteered for service in WWII, and served both honorably and admirably, surviving being shot down. Don't you dare to wish his existence away based upon some ideological spat with his progeny. Unless you have put your own life on the line in similar fashion, you have no right to shit all over his bravery.

Today, his political foes and his allies alike testify to the integrity of the man, the humanity of the man, and the service of the man. It is a rare distinction in any era, not just that of the depraved present. Because he served in highly sensitive and top-ranking assignments in the CIA and the State Department, it is patently obvious to even the simplest minds that he made decisions every day that affected humans all over the planet. It's an ugly reality that ambassadors and intelligence directors face that lesser men cannot handle. They take facts, crises, and have to act with the goal of protecting America's interest at the same time as doing the least harm or helping the most people possible. Those decisions are a terrible burden and their weight crushes lesser men.

George H. W. Bush obviously met that challenge and was given progressively greater trust and roles in a massive government bureaucracy. His earliest role as U.S. Congressman from Texas was a signal of his worth as a human being. Contrary to his party's and his constituency's stated position, he voted FOR the Fair Housing Act of 1968. He bravely returned home to an angry reception and faced his electorate in Houston, and unlike many such ugly polarized forums today, was afforded the respect due his office and presented his case for his vote. He was so compelling and convincing that he turned an angry crowd into a standing ovation.

Now, spew your petty snarks about his son or his political stances. He earned his plaudits and few if any of us on this forum will ever contribute with such bravery and character as he did. My own political views are far from the GOP, but that is not the basis for assessing the total worth of this man. Doing so degrades the world into the identity politics that have enabled Donald Trump's rise to power, and it is a path we should all oppose actively. As long as everyone out there is "them" or "us," the opposing forces will continue to threaten our very nation, and we will too.

 

[Alistair]

Like many through history he was a mediocre President. Can you name the President before Lincoln? He did his job, but in the future likely won't be remember, except being the father of GW. Is John Quincy Adams know for anything other than being the son of John Adams?

He was a respectable man, and as a President I'll nod my head at his passing.

 

[Pierresro]

Bush is less mentioned because he was not polarizing.

He would have had a much different legacy if his son had not ascended the American throne.

George Herbert Walker Bush was a moderate by most standards. He had to ally with more conservative elements as a political necessity of building a coalition to win. He was demonstrably uncomfortable with the far right and tried to distance himself from the anti-abortion caucus. His wife was an able campaigner which inevitably drew fire as he son approached being elected, but she had a deep following in the nation which far exceeded her GOP.

Unlike Reagan's rhetoric which is a real precursor of the garbage that today comes out of President Trump's mouth and machine, Bush attempted to be the president of the people. His service in multiple high ranking government positions like CIA and the State Department were the bedrock that proved he was qualified.

Unfortunately, he served in the White House in the post-Watergate era and was lampooned more fiercely and with more devastating effect than the presidents before Nixon had to weather. He is often belittled, but his quote about "warts and all" will always make him an endearing figure to those who assess leaders.

As a moderate in many areas, I will have no problem mourning the loss of President G. H. W. Bush, and honor his term as POTUS.

We will quickly find harsh liberals here who will use this thread to post bitter acrimony against him, and that is a part of the spectrum, but in the rank and file of the country, Bush Sr. is not hated, not despised, and not seen in the same light as his son or the present administration.

His loss will be eclipsed by Christmas soon, but he is due the honor of serving the high office.

May he find rest, and may he know the mercy of the God whom he has gone to meet.

I agree about Junior completely with you.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Like many through history he was a mediocre President. Can you name the President before Lincoln? He did his job, but in the future likely won't be remember, except being the father of GW. Is John Quincy Adams know for anything other than being the son of John Adams?

He was a respectable man, and as a President I'll nod my head at his passing.

I agree with the assessment that he will be forgotten, but that is the fate of all such leaders. However, I do not agree that it is due to any lack of greatness in the men, but in the nature of leadership, the notoriety of failure, and the apathy of the common man.

In former generations, only the few, usually the elite, were literate as to the history of the presidents in any detail beyond the singular events that may have occurred during each president's reign. Today, it is rare for anyone to learn much about more than one or two favorite leaders from his country's past. It is a reality that many graduates of America's public schools never read anything educational outside the textbooks of their courses, much less study the administrations of presidents who served 150 or 200 years ago. It's a near miracle that they know that Franklin on the $100 bill wasn't president.

By the nature of government, the patricians dominate the field, and it is the rare Obama or Clinton who rises to power nowadays. All the more that we should appreciate those who do in fact give back in their drives for power, who actually serve in posts that are the forges which temper the metal of future leaders.

Our nation's government, like that of France, Russia, and China, is a behemoth. Those who reach the top of such a vast bureaucracy have a mind boggling array of issues to face each day in the top of the executive branch. Unsurprisingly, great generals often do not make great governors. Washington, Eisenhower, and a few others are the exception, but even most of them could not survive the withering micro-focus of today's media and public.

The mark of such governors today may indeed be that they didn't fail in some colossal way. Their forgettable tenures may in fact be the testament to how well they ran "the firm," as the Windsors term it. How will those far in our future regard JFK with his dabbling in SE Asia, the Bay of Pigs, and his incessant philandering in high contrast to the publicity he fostered of his idealized family in "Camelot"? We are nearer his lifetime and have been conditioned by a powerful PR machine that the wealth of the Kennedy clan has fostered. Future generations will only read the facts.

 

[rareboy]

In case anyone gets too misty eyed....there also was this black mark that somewhat belies the gracious avuncular generosity of spirit that his hagiography might suggest.

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/1/18121...voraTkIBVeicNEYpk73y1vjkrFS0N1ZUzKFa8a4JBW3eg

 

[nycguydowntown]

^^ Vox is really going after him real hard in many ways---and causing a real stir on Facebook and other social media--

 

[NotHardUp1]

In case anyone gets too misty eyed....there also was this black mark that somewhat belies the gracious avuncular generosity of spirit that his hagiography might suggest.

Hmmmm. Let's weigh the marks.

Willie Horton actually DID stab his victim 19 times during a robbery.

Willie Horton actually DID rape a woman while out on a weekend furlough from prison under the Massachusetts system.

AL GORE first mentioned the case in the primary debates BEFORE the Republicans picked up the baton and ran with it. AL GORE. Yeah, that Al.

The Bush Campaign did pick it up and play it for all it was worth, and it was worth a lot. The allegation is that it was a dog whistle, a coded message about black crime and white fear. Yet the crimes were real. If anyone thinks the story would have played out one iota differently if the killer had been white, then you weren't paying attention. GOP voters were big on law and order platforms without the need to push race buttons.

The murder and the rape were real. They would have played no differently if white. It's not like the GOP electorate would have stopped and thought, "wellll, he DID murder and rape, and he DID violate the furlough to do it, but he was WHITE, so none of this makes any sense. I am not afraid of white killers. Let's elect Dukakis anyway, as I'm sure white killers on the loose aren't any threat to me and mine."

Gosh, do you [Text: Removed] even listen to the condescending narratives you play in your heads? Voters don't work that way. If you're tough on crime, a killer is a killer. If you are more afraid of black killers, it's just icing on the cake for the campaigns, but the race isn't necessary for the button to work.

On top of that, the black murder rate IS much higher, even if their typical victims are other blacks. There's that.

And, it being warmed over at the hour of the president's death is classic vendetta politics. The nation is overwhelmingly in agreement he was an honorable man, and you trot out this old hound that didn't hunt the first time out.

The truth is, EVERY time a Republican leader dies, no matter how positive an image he has, you keep a smear percolating because you respect no Republicans. Your position will not garner any respect in the arena of public opinion as it is as rigid as the accusations you make of the right.

At a time when we need moderates to lead more than ever in America, it's nice to know you lot in Canada are still trying to exacerbate the divisions even further. We have less to fear from the Russians.

 

[justaguy]

Any Presidents who came before the current one are now seen in a whole new light.

 

[Rickrock]

George H.W. Bush was more or less an acceptable Republican president. If we had to have a Republican president, he was one of the better choices. Also, in his personal life he was an honorable man and deserves to be honored in death.

 

[rareboy]

Hmmmm. Let's weigh the marks.

Willie Horton actually DID stab his victim 19 times during a robbery.

Willie Horton actually DID rape a woman while out on a weekend furlough from prison under the Massachusetts system.

AL GORE first mentioned the case in the primary debates BEFORE the Republicans picked up the baton and ran with it. AL GORE. Yeah, that Al.

The Bush Campaign did pick it up and play it for all it was worth, and it was worth a lot. The allegation is that it was a dog whistle, a coded message about black crime and white fear. Yet the crimes were real. If anyone thinks the story would have played out one iota differently if the killer had been white, then you weren't paying attention. GOP voters were big on law and order platforms without the need to push race buttons.

The murder and the rape were real. They would have played no differently if white. It's not like the GOP electorate would have stopped and thought, "wellll, he DID murder and rape, and he DID violate the furlough to do it, but he was WHITE, so none of this makes any sense. I am not afraid of white killers. Let's elect Dukakis anyway, as I'm sure white killers on the loose aren't any threat to me and mine."

Gosh, do you rabid attack dogs even listen to the condescending narratives you play in your heads? Voters don't work that way. If you're tough on crime, a killer is a killer. If you are more afraid of black killers, it's just icing on the cake for the campaigns, but the race isn't necessary for the button to work.

On top of that, the black murder rate IS much higher, even if their typical victims are other blacks. There's that.

And, it being warmed over at the hour of the president's death is classic vendetta politics. The nation is overwhelmingly in agreement he was an honorable man, and you trot out this old hound that didn't hunt the first time out.

The truth is, EVERY time a Republican leader dies, no matter how positive an image he has, you keep a smear percolating because you respect no Republicans. Your position will not garner any respect in the arena of public opinion as it is as rigid as the accusations you make of the right.

At a time when we need moderates to lead more than ever in America, it's nice to know you lot in Canada are still trying to exacerbate the divisions even further. We have less to fear from the Russians.

It is hilarious watching some people smear gobs of vaseline on the lens of history in order to sanctify their saints.

I get the feeling that you are more invested personally in making sure that Bush is seen as a great leader because you think that not to do so is some kind of patriotic slight against the US, than anything else.

No one is saying that he wasn't a credible and satisfactory president for his time. Or that he was an evil fuck turd like the current clown stick.

But many people (including Americans by the way) are seeing him in a more realistic light than those who are looking for a romantic figure to mourn in order to make themselves feel better.

 

[KaraBulut]

...But many people (including Americans by the way) are seeing him in a more realistic light than those who are looking for a romantic figure to mourn in order to make themselves feel better.

Or we see him as the point where the post WWII generation of "country before politics" began to breakdown.

The paid operatives like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove did the dirty work while the candidate tried to continue to believe he wasn't culpable for the dirty deeds done by the paid operatives. Sure, Rove got fired- but by then, the die was cast. Atwater didn't see the light until the shortly before the light came for him- shortly before he died, he even owned up to setting up Gary Hart with the Monkey Business trip.

At the time, what Bush 41's operatives did seemed dirty but that was before the Gingrich era, the days of the mysterious Robocalls, billionaire-funded ads and social media disinformation campaigns.

It's a sad statement that now the argument is "Well, at least Atwater and Rove were Americans and not Russians...".

 

[Sausy]

Bush was not a saint no
r ever claimed to be. But if you look only at people in a strict good vs bad manner, you are bound to be disappointed far more than not. Bush was complex, and people on the right not seeing complexities and human foibles doesn't mean we on the more progressive end get to be so sanctimonious and better than thou. Again, this is where I had parted company(sometimes foolishly) with the left for a long time... my earlier years on JUB especially. Bush represented an era that is fast disappearing... he had good friends on both sides of the aisle, and in the end now we have bitter division and constant poisonous theatrics and results.

 

[willhunt]

I think that this will sound ludicrous, but he represents a world I've never known.

 

[rareboy]

Bush was not a saint no
r ever claimed to be. But if you look only at people in a strict good vs bad manner, you are bound to be disappointed far more than not. Bush was complex, and people on the right not seeing complexities and human foibles doesn't mean we on the more progressive end get to be so sanctimonious and better than thou. Again, this is where I had parted company(sometimes foolishly) with the left for a long time... my earlier years on JUB especially. Bush represented an era that is fast disappearing... he had good friends on both sides of the aisle, and in the end now we have bitter division and constant poisonous theatrics and results.

I take it as some mark of his character that the Obamas seem to like him and that he was also held in some regard by the Queen of England, who has dealt with hundreds of political leaders over the years.

 

[peeonme]

What I admired about GHW Bush had little to do with his politics. He was a rich kid who like JFK didn't feel above the call to serve in ww2. He had a marriage with Barbara that lasted 73 years. He was a decent man and loved his family.

 

[NotHardUp1]

It is hilarious watching some people smear gobs of vaseline on the lens of history in order to sanctify their saints.

I get the feeling that you are more invested personally in making sure that Bush is seen as a great leader because you think that not to do so is some kind of patriotic slight against the US, than anything else.

Except I did not begin feeling about Bush the way I do at the point of his death. Although I voted for my former governor when he defeated Bush, I even then thought he was a respectable man of character. Far from being a saint, I thought him a good man, especially as a political leader.

I accepted that the Willie Horton ad might be exploitation, but politics IS an ugly game and it takes the Roves and others to actually win. In retrospect, I think George H. W. Bush learned that when Reagan beat him eight years prior. It doesn't matter if you are the better man for the job if you fail to get the job. NO politician is virtuous, no politician is clean. It has always been a question of how much they are compromised, not if.

No one is saying that he wasn't a credible and satisfactory president for his time.

But many people (including Americans by the way) are seeing him in a more realistic light than those who are looking for a romantic figure to mourn in order to make themselves feel better.

I think you and I view ritual differently. It is custom, and I believe a worthwhile custom, to observe a period of grace surrounding the death of a leader. That goes for religious or secular leaders. The greater population agrees with this. There is a ritual of unification around the leader. There is plenty of time later to shine the harsh light of realism on the totality of a man's life.

My guess is that you see my observance and defense of that tradition as a fear, a fear that someone on JUB might read the criticism and think less of the dead. I don't. I simply think that the choice of that time to tear down is ill-chosen, and that it appears almost sniveling. If the opposition to George Bush was a current thing, it would have been there before he died. There would have been contemporary and current criticism. Instead, using threads that commemorate the dead to slam them seems like guerilla sniping from behind the cover of the trees.

I don't think our job as political opponents is to relentlessly harry the foe. There are times to make advances and stand for points at the right time, but there is a time to recognize and respect the humanity of men. The time of their deaths is one of those times. Failure to do so means they are reduced to villains. Most are not. They are merely of different positions.

Our nation is deeply and painfully divided for 99.9% of the time. Some of the few times we come together of late is the passing of our leaders or cultural icons. When Nancy Reagan died, my country did not unite, and she was not a uniting person, albeit not an official.

On the contrary, when Barbara Bush died, the nation did unite. We also did when McCain died. I suspect that President Carter will likewise be lionized even as his failures in office are recited, because he has been a decent man and a man of service. He may have called more attention in this generation to the health of the poor in the third world than did Dr. Schweitzer.

Especially in a day in which leaders get no honeymoon once elected, they deserve at least the respite during their period of official mourning.

If we were talking about Mao or Stalin, I might aver from that, but we're not.

 

[rareboy]

"You know all of the rhetoric you see. 'Thousands points of light.' What the hell was that, by the way? Thousand points of light. What does that mean? I know one thing: Make America Great Again we understand. Putting America first we understand. Thousand points of light, I never quite got that one. What the hell is that? Has anyone ever figured that one out? It was put out by a Republican, wasn’t it?"

— Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump, 2016

 

[belamyi]

Damn, I started this two days ago, and still hadn't the time or leisure to finish it...

What the hell, if Leonardo could, so can I maybe I will finally have the time this long weekend..:

Hmmmm. Let's weigh the marks.

Willie Horton actually DID stab his victim 19 times during a robbery.

Willie Horton actually DID rape a woman while out on a weekend furlough from prison under the Massachusetts system.

AL GORE first mentioned the case in the primary debates BEFORE the Republicans picked up the baton and ran with it. AL GORE. Yeah, that Al.

The Bush Campaign did pick it up and play it for all it was worth, and it was worth a lot. The allegation is that it was a dog whistle, a coded message about black crime and white fear. Yet the crimes were real. If anyone thinks the story would have played out one iota differently if the killer had been white, then you weren't paying attention. GOP voters were big on law and order platforms without the need to push race buttons.

The murder and the rape were real. They would have played no differently if white. It's not like the GOP electorate would have stopped and thought, "wellll, he DID murder and rape, and he DID violate the furlough to do it, but he was WHITE, so none of this makes any sense. I am not afraid of white killers. Let's elect Dukakis anyway, as I'm sure white killers on the loose aren't any threat to me and mine."

Gosh, do you [Text: Removed] even listen to the condescending narratives you play in your heads? Voters don't work that way. If you're tough on crime, a killer is a killer. If you are more afraid of black killers, it's just icing on the cake for the campaigns, but the race isn't necessary for the button to work.

On top of that, the black murder rate IS much higher, even if their typical victims are other blacks. There's that.

And, it being warmed over at the hour of the president's death is classic vendetta politics. The nation is overwhelmingly in agreement he was an honorable man, and you trot out this old hound that didn't hunt the first time out.

The truth is, EVERY time a Republican leader dies, no matter how positive an image he has, you keep a smear percolating because you respect no Republicans. Your position will not garner any respect in the arena of public opinion as it is as rigid as the accusations you make of the right.

At a time when we need moderates to lead more than ever in America, it's nice to know you lot in Canada are still trying to exacerbate the divisions even further. We have less to fear from the Russians.

Hmmmm. Let's balance the marks.

Willie Horton was not the only American to have raped women and killed white people in the 1980s: but, unlike, say, Wayne DuMond, HE WAS BLACK.

Since AL GORE is a weasel, (AL GORE, yes, that Al), one is justified to enter deep mud whenever that Al feels like playing a little with it, by first bringing up the case of Willie Horton who, let's not forget, WAS BLACK. And George Bush Sr. was a moderate.

The Bush Campaign did pick it up and play it for all it was worth, and it was worth a lot: unlike, say, Wayne DuMond, who had been molesting, assaulting and raping teen girls and women for years, before deciding he also wanted to kill his victims, HE WAS BLACK.

The allegation is that it was a dog whistle, a coded message about black crime and white fear. Yet the crimes were real. If anyone thinks the story would have played out one iota differently if the killer had been white, then you weren't paying attention. GOP voters were big on law and order platforms without the need to push race buttons. Yet he decided to pick a man who WAS BLACK.

[Duplicate Text: Removed]

 

[peeonme]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bush-nra-resignation/

Dear Mr. Washington,

I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as “jack-booted thugs.” To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as “wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms” wanting to “attack law abiding citizens” is a vicious slander on good people.

The man that I remember.

 

[belamyi]

^ Not the man who joined it, but the man who resigned from it.

You do not need to be a dogmatic leftist to be the victim of blind rosy prejudices about how you believe that things should be... that actually could never be so.