« | »

Bush Calls It ‘Essential’ To Help Obama

From a mildly approving Associated Press:

Former U.S. President George W. Bush, left, speaks with former Canadian Ambassador to the United States Frank McKenna at an invitation-only event titled a ‘Conversation with George W. Bush’ on Tuesday March 17, 2009 in Calgary, Canada.

Bush says it’s ‘essential’ to help Obama

By Rob Gillies, Associated Press Writer

CALGARY, Alberta – Former President George W. Bush, making his first public speech since leaving office in January, says he wants Barack Obama to succeed and that it’s "essential" to support the new leader.

Bush declined to critique the Obama administration in Tuesday’s speech, saying the new president has enough critics and that he "deserves my silence."

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has said that Obama’s decisions threatened America’s safety. Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has said he hoped Obama would fail.

"I love my country a lot more than I love politics," Bush said. "I think it is essential that he be helped in office."

Bush also said he plans to write a book that will ask people to consider what they would do if they had to protect the United States as president. "It’s going to be (about) the 12 toughest decisions I had to make," he said…

Bush didn’t specify what the 12 hardest decisions were but said Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein in power..

The invitation-only event titled a "Conversation with George W. Bush" attracted close to 2,000 guests who paid $3,100 per table. Bush received two standing ovations from the predominantly business crowd.

About 200 protested outside the event; four of them were arrested. Some protesters threw shoes at an effigy of Bush, a reference to the Iraqi journalist who tossed his shoes at the former president during a December news conference in Baghdad.

"He shouldn’t be able to go anywhere in the world and just present himself as a private citizen," protest organizer Peggy Askin said. "We do not have any use for bringing war criminals into this country. It’s an affront."

While Bush is unpopular in Canada, he is less so in oil-rich Alberta, the country’s most conservative province and one sometimes called the Texas of the north…

In a nutshell, this is everything that is wrong with Mr. Bush and indeed the entire Republican Party.

He would seldom defend his policies, let alone any basic Republican let alone conservative principles.

For instance, to merely say that “Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein” is a grotesque understatement of why we have fought such a costly war in Iraq.

And to swear off criticizing even in a general way, a man who is about to change our Republic – for the worse and forever – is not graciousness.

It is shirking his responsibilities as a citizen.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, March 18th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

60 Responses to “Bush Calls It ‘Essential’ To Help Obama”

  1. Media_man says:

    The GOP (Bush, McCain, et. al) seems to be fighting what military experts call a “limited engagement” battle while the Dems are waging “total war”. The Dems lie, slander, distort, & defame at every turn with the helpful aid of a one party liberal media while the GOP tries to pretend “we’re all good Americans”. The trouble is the Dems aren’t good Americans; they are Socialists hell bent on destroying the country, and they are succeeding.

    The GOP shows up with good intentions & the Dems show up with AK-47s and Napalm.

    • Confucius says:


      Fighting with, instead of for, principles guarantees an asymmetric battle where the imbalances overwhelm the principled.

      If you’re not ready to fight for your principles, then stay at home with them.

    • proreason says:

      Well put Media_man. Also see my post below which is on the same theme.

    • Right of the People says:

      It’s hard to fight an enemy like the MSM on principles when they don’t have any.

  2. reefdiver says:

    Sadly, George Bush is not the one to go to for thoughts on how to save us from Marxism.

  3. U NO HOO says:

    “2,000 guests who paid $3,100 per table”

    Say what, eh?

  4. Rusty Shackleford says:

    George W becomes a republicrat.

    Like Rush has so eloquently put it, to support this president is to support programs that encourage and embrace socialism. I want Obama to fail as well. By defintiion, I want capitalism to succeed, thereby allowing the nation to succeed as a free nation should; Not by clamping down tightly on free enterprise and hobbling the very process.

    For Bush to say we should “help” the new president is to imply, perhaps to show him a better way and get him to move more towards the middle. But the ass-for-a-hat electee has said, indicated and demonstrated that he has no intention of middle of the road anything. Therefore, it becomes academic that the US will fail as a free nation if he is allowed to continue with these blatantly socialist plans.

    Sorry W, you got it wrong.

  5. proreason says:

    Dubya is the type of man who cannot contemplate evil in his fellow citizens, and he considers it undignified to defend himself.

    He is someone who insists on playing by “the rules”, but those rules were kicked to the side during the Clinton administration (for which Republicans more than share in the blame, imho). And after Bush beat Al Toad and Traitor Kerry, the Left multiplied it’s contemptable behaviour by a factor of 10.

    So now, he’s the guy who comes to the knife fight with a stick, only the other guy intended to bring a bazooka the whole time.

    I wish he had adapted to the times, but I don’t think he is shirking his responsibilities as a citizen.

    McCain is similar.

    If we don’t find somebody willing to use the new rules, and trump them, we will never overthrow the criminal cabal that has siezed power with the intent to destroy the country.

    • Consilience says:

      PR, You are correct is labeling the left as a “criminal cabal”, but they didn’t seize power, they were elected because the republicans could no longer articulate a difference between the parties—-and continue to squeal in the minority when there should be a ROAR! to defend our Republic…call a spade a spade, call the bastards “Marxists” on the air and back it up…

    • proreason says:

      Consil, we agree on most everything. I say “siezed power”, because if the election had been held with a free-flow of information, McLame would be screwing things up today instead of The Moron.

      The left are in power, not because the people prefer radiacal policies, but because the left captured the vehicles of propaganda (msm and education system) which willingly violated their positions of trust by shamelessly shilling for the Socialists/Communists/Oligarchy.

      Phrased that way, I suspect you agree with that as well.

    • Consilience says:

      Indeed, I suspect McCain would have similar policies w/respect to the “stimulus” so-called—–McCain is an elitist/middle of the road liberal, TAO is a doctrinaire Marxist (as is Dingy Harry and San Fran Nan/Blinky)—and this trio is a clear and present danger to the Constitution they swore an oath to support and defend…

  6. Enthalpy says:

    Some degree of reciprocity must be part of this equation. The Left have no respect for any position but their own, and thats why Rahm is trying to make the most of this “golden opportunity” to impose most of the Left’s dreams on us during this time of turmoil. Is our Congress and Senate not trying to do the same thing with all of their earmarks? The Left looks at any other’s world view with disdain, unworthy of respect or consideration. The “help” they would expect would be extracted from us while they are standing on our neck. President Bush never got it, John McCain doesn’t get it, and much of the Republican party still doesn’t get it. The issue is obvious: do we “help” President Obama while he drowns us?

  7. ATexThang says:

    I think W is right. In true W fashion, he is also kind a wrong, but let’s look where he’s right:

    0 DOES need help. Lots of it. Mostly professional. And an exorcism couldn’t hurt, either. W got it wrong when he said it was essential to support the Zeero, but I understand why he said it. Zeero will fail, God willing, but no one will be able to say that Bush went around Carter-izing him. Good for Bush.

    W is also right that 0 deserves W’s silence as a former President. W is a private citizen now, but he was on that dais as a former President. As a private citizen, he never would have been.

    Finally, W did not praise 0bama’s leadership. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes to me. I think if the crass president had even one area of strength or leadership, Bush would have commented on it. Instead, he said nothing.

    On another note, FTA: Rush Limbaugh has said he hoped Obama would fail.

    Sorry sack of lying AP. But I repeat myself.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      In Texas, there has been more said by remaining silent, than a whole month’s worth of sermons.

      I hear ya, man.

    • Right of the People says:

      Like my mom used to say; “If you can’t say something nice about somebody, then don’t say anything.” GWB’s momma must have told him the same thing. Slinging mud in public at a critter like Oblah-blah just drags you down to his level.

    • Lipstick on a PIAPS says:

      I think it’s good that Bush doesn’t act like the losers Carter and Clinton. BUT if the Democrats and the Media keep trying to pin a lot of this crap on him I would tell President W. Bush to say, ” What? You want me to come back and fix it?” THAT would shut them up everytime. Keep a low profile and respond wih humor, Sarah Palin will be coming in 2012 o clean up the BO in the White House.

  8. GL0120 says:

    Why in the world do Republican’s insist on being “Nice?”
    The Democrats will eat your lunch, tell you it wasn’t enough, and then turn around and charge you for the “privilege!”
    Rush said that the Republicans to take back control in 2010 – provided they grow a set. Sadly, I don’t see that happening.
    For God’s sake people, the future of the republic is on the line, get some starch in your backbones and at the risk of being labeled racist, call a spade a spade!

    • catie says:

      GLO120, I have to agree with you. I’m tired of this being nice garbage myself. Obummer has done nothing but mock and blame W and the Republicans for everything (including probably rain when he wanted sun). I don’t know, maybe he’s just a beaten man. I was glad to hear Cheney smack them down though. Of course the Fat, Ugly mouthpiece had to act like a three year old (which I admit to myself calling him fat and ugly but I digress) in his response, Tony Snow or Dana Perrino would not have stooped to that level. But we all know it’s middle school in the White House again. This “cabal” as fatty said is on the Left not the Right. We know who has the class and who does not but it would be nice if he had uttered a statement in the vein of Cheney.
      Don’t forget kids, the popular kid is going to be on tv tomorrow night. Let’s not forget to ask mom & dad if we can stay up and watch him on Leno, okey dokey!

  9. Odie44 says:

    I agree with most comments here – but I think its important to look ahead as to why Bush would do this.
    Is it possible he is purposely playing a higher ground – at this very time – to start the “Contract with America Part 2” , soon to arrive in 2010 for the benefit of Reps?

    While Bush is/was “hated” – with Bambi’s 58 days of complete bumbling – that hatred dicipates over time and combined with failing “stimuli” bills – that hatred or disapproval (like moderate, even left hacks opining negatively over the past 2 weeks) will replace, to some extent – the Bush hatred.

    I think of Nixon. Hated by the left only (you dont win in ’72 with 20% more popular vote than ’68 and almost all Electoral Votes) which led to Carter, which thankfully – immediately lead to Reagan. For all the so called “Frost Nixon” moments they continued throughout the years – it had zero effect on a) how horrible Carter was and b) how easy Reagan got elected in ’80.

    Hard core lefties will still hate Bush – but thats not the prize in 2010 or 2012. I do not look for Bush to ignite a conservative movement in the country – that is now the challange for others, but in the mean time – I like his approach. Considering Clinton was “so popular and loved by the masses after he left office” – how well did that help Hillary???

    Sway, undecided, independants, etc – make or break elections as we all know – and there is no way in hell if and when Bambi and the Dem controlled Congress are still floundering in 2010 that Reps, in any way shape or form, will be accountable.

    I completely understand the “dont show up with a stick to a knife fight” – but sometimes the knifer stabs himself…

    • proreason says:

      Odie, I agree with you on this.

      I think it is the same thing that Newt is doing.

      It’s fine for us to speak bluntly and colorfully about the ComSocialists, but the people who run for office or will directly support those who run should not be as explicit as we can be. If they did, the people in the middle, who do not pay as much attention as we do, would be more easily tricked by the drive-by’s to believe all Republicans are “extreme”.

      We should not expect national leaders to be as explicit as Rush, for example. Much as I love and agree with Rush, it would be political suicide for someone like Romney, as an example, to speak as Rush does. The national spokemen simply have to be more muted.

      But I still believe that there is a lot of room between McLame’s refusal to criticize a multi-racial Communist, and screaming Communist at the top of one’s lungs.

      I’m delighted, for example, to hear Dick Morris explicitly state with authority “of course Obama is a Socialist”, and then give 5 reasons that even dolts can understand.

    • Odie44 says:

      Pro –

      Great points throguhout – and namely the end, concerning what Morris is/has been saying. While not going “Rush” in dialogue – those in the Rep leadership, incumbants and potential Rep nominees need to stop talking about “features” of the socialist agenda – but the damage it is and will do. Aside from “angry zeolot tagging, etc” – Dems are very good at promising a benefit – whether real or not, and tend to stay away from the features.

      Instead of asking “is Bambi a socialist, does Bambi have ties to radical left nut jobs”, etc – they need to TELL people he is a socialist, TELL his associations, TELL his failures in “communituy organizing” TELL people Dodd, Frank are responsible.

      Dems will always posture the victimhood, regardless of what Reps say – but Reps need to own the dialogue and message first. The opportunity’s lost in ’96 and ’08 were due to fluffy, inane talking points that do not resinate.

      Additionally, as many cons agree – we need to act, talk and walk like conservatives.

      One last ramble: I sell agency services. In my career, I have been able to seperate myself from others through my style. I dont call someone and give them a rosy 2 minute dissertation about “why we think we are a good partner for a relationship, blah, blah.” – I say this “Jon, your revenue is slipping 25%, while your competitors is rising 10%. What are you doing about it? The most effective and rewarding 15 seconds of the process. I don’t ask for their business, I tell them why they need to do business with me.

      It was/is the beauty of Reagan. He didn’t “ask” Goorby to tear down the wall, he TOLD him to.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Well, although in polite company such an argumment is valid, and it even has good points for politicians, I have to politely disagree.

      For one thing, the dhippy-dippy-crats did NOT commit political suicide as they were flaming Bush so unrelentlessly. It does appear that republicans are tryig to take the higher ground but as has been pointed out, Queensury Rules aren’t helping….when the opponent brings it on.

      Though I would not prefer a street-fight, I also don’t like one side prepared for badminton with the other in full pads for four quarters of football.

      To me, it appears to be time for the TRUTH to be used to its greatest advantage. And since when is telling the truth political suicide? *Disclaimer– Nobody in politics is completely clean. Naturally, it shouldn’t be, but everyone has something to hide.

      But the complacency and compliance of the republican party that rolls on most democrat issues has distrubed me greatly. That, coupled with a huge segment of the population that sees no cost/benefit in uncovering the facts to get to the real root of matters that matter, results in US, the U.S. getting bum-rushed for bus fare.

      The problem in this nation is not ONLY the democrats or liberals, but an endemic problem that goes back a few decades that has resulted in this candy-coated crap of an administration. In other words, “stupid” is ever more popular now and let’s face it, easy. With that aas the operative factor in the US where people don’t won’t take the time to LEARN and LISTEN and instead just blindly believe that all will be fine while bad people with an agenda throw them sales pitch after sales pitch, then it goes from circling the drain to going down the tubes.

      As a co-worker just pointed out: “It will find its own balance” but i tmay not be the balance that is the most beneficial to the people; Individual or collective.

      So the balance it may seek and ultimately find is a yet more socialist nation with the government making its usual bubble-gum and baling wire fixes to things that used to work just fine on their own, and/or re-inventing the wheel to the dismay of everyone who has to use it.

      We got the government we deserve. Unfortunately, there are those who did not vote for it who have to suffer through the results. Ironically, those who DID, also get to suffer through it.

      But as to the point of taking the higher ground, president Bush actually made a very Texan statement (if you understand it) that said it all when he said, “He deserves my silence” and whether by accident or design, it is a very clear message to me. Think of his statement as a tongue-in-cheek remark vs an open statement of graciousness. Texans can be the masters of understatement and had I stood next to him when he said it, I would’ve had to look carefully at his face to see what he really meant.

    • Odie44 says:

      Rusty –

      Good debate is in the DNA of Sweetness & Light.

      I think you are dead on with what is happening in America – and we are really aren’t that far off – but executing a winning strategy is another thing. Truth, as a pillar – is a dangerous term that can be easily manipulated, in fact Dems are experts at controlling the Truth dialogue. While we should expect things like, truth, integrity, character – the fact is (as you point out in your descriptions) politicans and Americans themselves are the furthest from this.

      If integrity, truth and character were fibers of our current society, it would be a much, much differnet picture. AA, entitlement, PC, rewarding failure – couldn’t possibly exist in a truthful nation. People with zero ability to pay loans would never get them, 75% of elected officials would either be in jail or thrown out…

      Truth , integrity and character of the nation is the goal – but it cannot accomplished by yelling “we are more truthful, have more integrity, have more character” – thats been an epic failure.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Can’t disagree with you there.

      And that’s kind of a shame.

      But given the mechanism(s) under which politics operates, how do we, who desire a truly accountable system of government, who’s desire for what the founders of our nation intended is no less ambitious than the Utopian Ideal that the liberal democrats seek…which has always proven to be an unattainable failure…How do we get out and try to fight the clean fight when it really comes down to “wrasslin in the mud, the blood and the beer?”

    • Odie44 says:

      “wrasslin in the mud, the blood and the beer?” – story of my life, lol.

      All of your observations are dead on concerning America – I think some keys are understanding we cannot turn the “perception and deception tide” overnight, concerning the American masses. It has been a long, ingrained process that Dems and libs have manipulated and mastered. The only way this turnaround, en masse can happen is through – complete economic ruin, of which we all pay or incremental “chipping away” – through local (House), state gov. first, in the same way 94 turned around. Newt’s stock has been rising for the past 2 years for a reason…

      And as always – I look to Reagan. While Bambi is a scary Carter redux (actually far more dangerous – at least Carter, though misguided, worked for everything he had and was an intelligent man) – the saving grace is… 2012 can be the Reagan moment again. I think Reagans greatest strength , as The True Great Communicator (not this faux teleprompter dolt), was his ability to hit you below the belt, while making it seem “nice and witty” Now – his intelligence and experience went a long way – but think to the famous “I knew Thomas Jefferson – and you are no Thomas Jefferson” line. Funny, timely, self mascicating – and wildly successful. Or “Mr President – Mr Mondale thinks your old age is a problem, is it” Answer “Yes, I will make sure to not bring up his inexperience”

      We do not need to stoop to the pathetic liberal method, regardless of their Brown Shirt tactics. And because Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc are really that dangerous and dumb – they will begin to bleed the American people themselves.

      And one last key – while today’s times are scary and Bush and Reps are “the devil” to many – Reagan was elected during a time of extremely radical movements both here and abroad- only 5 years out from Nixon’s resignation – a far “greater” problem for Reps than Bush being hated, yet equal stakes on the line.

      And just to pick you up today, I literally almost weep when I read these and am reminded of his greatness:

    • proreason says:

      Rusty, the unique problem conservatives face and the one I think you aren’t fully recognizing is that the lib kooks own the media and the media still has enormous power. It’s waning slowly, but 2008 illustrated that as their influence wanes, they just turn up the volume to compensate.

      National conservative leaders have to live with the reality, not a dream.

      We all agree we want leaders who take stronger stands, but if they use as explicit language as we do, they will be gang lynched and will consequently fail to persuade the voters we need to influence.

      Newt, in particular, is a master at making conservative points fearlessly and finding the “friendliest” way to make them…but I also know that if he chooses to run, the msm will increase the pressure 100-fold even above 2008, and he has a less than perfect history. I was thrilled with Palin, because of her background and the great convention speech, but look what the rabid msm did to her. It’s a BIG problem.

      It’s the biggest dilemna the Republican party faces.

      As for people like ourselves, I think we should (a) be gentler with conservatives who compromise with language, but (b) not accept leaders who compromise on essential principles.

    • TwilightZoned says:

      WOW! My head is spinning with all this great insight. This why I chose to join this particular blog. Kudos to you all.

      My initial thought on Bush remaining quiet said to me, “Class.” I was so sick of Carter sticking his nose in where it didn’t belong. And Clinton…well, I’m afraid he’s never going away.

      We are living in very unsure and treacherous times for our country. Conservative Republicans do need to speak out and hold their ground versus just taking it, however, it is a very fine line to walk.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:


      Nope, I noted and logged the media control thing a long time ago. I do not watch MSM. I occasionally watch it if they have something relevant to report, like flight 1549 which I had a big interest in. Noting, of course, their excitability and need for enhancing the already high drama.

      But I have also noted the zombies who still think that the news media, the newspapers and magazines all report “the truth”. When it comes down to it, when these entities report on something I know about and get most of the details universally wrong, it’s easy to translate that to everything they report. At the same time, it boggles the mind to imagine a huge newsroom, with fact checkers and investigators working so diligently to get it all so wrong.

      But that’s my level of cynicism. I think a certain amount is healthy…usually referred to as “pragmatism”…and being able to plan ahead and of course, see where other things can go horribly wrong. Kind of like watching a 3 year old fix their first bowl of cereal, ever.

      My frustration, like a lot of people’s is the blatant misrepresentation of things. In Texas, we say, “Boy, don’t pee on my boots and tell me it’s raining” and similar. I grew up with and harbor an intense dislike of BS, unless it’s a bunch of folks going on about things that are just fun. But when it comes to the government saying “take this pill and swallow, you’ll like it, it’s good for you” well, naturally I’m gonna be just a little skeptical if not out and out wary.

      In my line of work, there’s a little phrase that we use that goes, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help.” Of course you can see mine and my co-workers is a corner-of-the-eye looking at you bunch. So I’m no stranger to how the media completely slides the real information off the radar, puts frosting on a cow patty, or tries to sell me a polished turd. But somewhere along the line I stopped laughing at the likes of Brian Williams and his ilk and instead became angry when I hear other people talking about “what was on the news” as if it was factual.

      Ratings, which translates into income for the producers and owners of the news programs along with people who work there who have an agenda that “rules, standards and ethics” are for the “bad, evil, buzz-killers in suits”, and the all-too-eager viewing/listening public that has learned how to not think and let the information process itself, and it will tell you EVERYTHING…from what’s dangerous at the grocery store (usually a crap story to keep you tuned in) to fabricating complete lies about what the government is up to.

      And it’s all packaged like a very serious, very important document. Listening to the opening blab of any network news show, and once…just once for giggles, I actually used a stopwatch to time the total amount of time NBC’s Williams and other reporters spent addressing the news. It was about 17 minutes in that half hour. I didn’t count the fluff piece about a fireman rescuing the kitty.

      Commercials, casually inserted plugs for this or that point of view…etc. I only timed when he or another reporter was addressing the news, accurate or not.

      So, I’m keenly aware of THEM.

      Their power, though, is only the power that the average drooling mouth-breather will let them have. And there lies the rub, aye. Once the networks realized they could not only get the news out there, but could (at first) slant it and (later) tailor-make it…by several different mechanisms, be it selective information picking, source picking, and certainly choice of words..not to mention WHO does the reporting and all that.

      In my own mind, I am firmly convinced that a conversation with someone like Brian Williams about anything…anything at all…would reveal that he is a moron. Well-spoken to be sure. looks sharp on camera. Good diction, focuses his gaze well. But, try to have a conversation with him about, oh, military hardware or house construction or, hell, tires for that matter and I’m sure I’d quickly find that he’s swimming in the shallow end of the knowledge pool. Knows a little about a lot…but not much about any one specific thing. Except maybe male grooming products which will get a person far in life.

      And, although I see it, the “snobby information class” who likes to rub elbows with the political elite and entertainers, losing some ground, it does seem to be a perpetual motion machine. That’s probably because they use all the best marketing ploys in the business and keep people wanting more.

      My frustration, I guess, is more aimed at the lack of clever wordsmiths who can take a popular liberal’s statement and throw it back in their lap, on fire, and have the liberal thank them for it. Yes, Reagan was a good one for that. But, as I’ve said, I get tired of clever little word and mind games. I call it “drama” and it seems most everyone in this country is addicted to it. Drives me nuts. Like those jokes about “what a woman says vs. what she means”.

      I would love for a noted politician…one of immense respectability to just come out and start listing FACTS…not quite the way Rush does…but clearly and to the point with almost a complete lack of emotion. Kind of like the way my dad used to lecture me when I got caught in a lie as a kid.

      That’s my pipe dream. And if one can do it and then two then four then eight and on and on…

      I remember well when Ronald Reagan said, several times, “There you go again”.

      Gaffs and faux pas’s are to be expected but…. I was taught long ago, don’t argue with stupid people….they will eventually drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience” and yes, we need to stay above all that but at the same time, I itch for a seriously powerful case of “smackdown” where the conservative factually and accurately dissects every attempt at “facts” the liberals make.

  10. 64dodger says:

    Was it essential for Slick Willie to support Bush?

  11. David says:

    It does speak volumes to character when you compare the way that Obama speaks about Bush to the way Bush speaks about Obama. With the ignorant hatred of President Bush in vogue it is probably to the benefit of conservatism that he not look like the spokesman for it. In fact he could probably do more good as a saboteur by actively campaigning for Obama’s most outlandish ideas. This would only work if he actually liked politics more, which he has said he does not. Personally, I think he deserves a restful break from the public lime light. You suppose Karl Rove is busy right now?

  12. artboyusa says:

    Shut up, Bush. Just shut the hell up. You’re part of the reason we’re stuck with President Barometer, so just shut up.

    • U NO HOO says:


    • Al Morone says:

      Bravo, artboy, bravo! Bush is an idiot who has utterly ruined this country. And don’t forget, his equally moronic brother Jeb is waiting in the wings to become president in 4 to 8 years.

    • TwilightZoned says:

      I’d be surprised if ‘ol Jeb ran. I think the country is sick and tired of the name Bush in the WH. Having lived under Jeb’s reign for 8 years, I wouldn’t vote for him.

  13. U NO HOO says:

    “”I love my country a lot more than I love politics,” Bush said.”

    Bush continued the socialization of his country.

    Doesn’t demonstrate love to me.

    Unless he HATES politics.

    If he hates politics he should have kept playing baseball.

  14. heather08 says:

    If Bush were to criticize Obama, it would just be fodder for the White House attack operation. It would provide O with a welcome diversion from the many real problems that he is (mis)handling.

    • Odie44 says:

      Dead on.

      Bush (for all of his supposed “dumbness) is ensuring this doesn’t happen by controlling the message and dialogue.

  15. Trogdor says:

    I agree with the comments about the GOP not fighting hard enough against the lies. I also blame Bush for not ever communicating enough to the average joe, maybe he should have gone on Jay Leno…

  16. bdelsol says:

    This man is utterly consistent. Maddeningly consistent. For eight years he has been gracious and respectful to his opponents. And they’ve rewarded him by spewing venom and slander and ridicule. The things they have said about him — in movies, in plays, in “news” — bear absolutely no resemblance to the actual man. He is not merely wrong. He is a stupid evil-genius monster. (Or some such nonsensical construct.) And yet — it doesn’t faze him. While it hasn’t (and doesn’t) help Republicans, and probably not the nation either, I can’t help but be amazed at what kind of person Christianity produces. Maybe one day others will appreciate what a great example Mr. Bush has been and we will be better for it.

    • curvyred says:

      He has always been grace under fire – sometimes to his own detriment.

      The contrast between him and the others is astounding – classy vs classless.

  17. 4USA says:

    W has been described as arrogant. I always worried that he would be as bad as his father when it came to social programs. He was much worse. Why can’t we find any true conservatives? Are they all just wimps? We need someone to step out, admit his/her faults and stick to principles. Let the voters decide and stop worrying about the media.

  18. annabetsy says:

    When are the Republicans going to stop worrying about offending Democrats and start speaking and acting on the behalf of the people who put them in office? Washington is acting like some kind of immature club where everyone wants to impress the upper echelon. Who cares if you display nonsupport for a dictator who wants to destroy everything that makes America strong and put us in harm’s way? Why is this so hard to understand?

  19. dalej78 says:

    I’m severely disappointed in George W. Bush. I think his downfall was that he tried (and continues to try) too hard to appease liberals. *sigh*. Give it up GWB, they’re never going to like you because of the R next to your name.

  20. Sharps Rifle says:

    Go away, George! If you’d actually been a Conservative, we might not be sentenced to Hussein’s hookah-induced socialist wonderland!

  21. proreason says:

    “From the book Thomas Jefferson by R. B. Bernstein, page 90: “Jefferson feared that Hamilton had plans radically at odds with the Constitution. As [Jefferson] saw it, Hamilton wanted to warp the federal government out of constitutional shape, converting it into a copy of the British government, built on debt, corruption, and influence. Hamilton’s goal, Jefferson charged, was to ally the rich and well-born with the government at the people’s expense, creating a corrupt aristocracy leagued with the government against the people and destroying the virtue that was the basis of republican government.” Now, we can argue — we can argue, ladies and gentlemen — about Jefferson’s assessment of Alexander Hamilton. However, I wish to read this to you again, and I wish to say to you that Thomas Jefferson has just described the objectives of Barack Obama and the people he has brought into his administration.

    This is from Rush’s show today.

    Every once in a while, I think that maybe I’m the nut for ranting about the wealthy oligarchy using socialism to highjack the country……..but then I read something like this and see that Thomas Jefferson had the same opinion of Alexander Hamilton. I guess if I’m a nut, so is the author of the Declaration of Independence.

  22. mybrotherkeeper says:

    Was Bush right or wrong? In a previous generation he might have been right. In this one, he’s wrong. Why is he taking this approach? I don’t know, and I don’t care; but it does not work. Guys like Dole, McCain, and Bush are all similar in this regard. They don’t fight hard, they are ‘good losers.’ But really, they are rich; we are the ones who are the losers. Now if Obama was criticising Bush and Bush was silent, he might be classy. But when Obama is mugging the nation, and Bush turns the other way, that is cowardly. A really good man will fight for someone else before he will fight for himself, I believe.

    • Odie44 says:

      Mybrother –

      No one disagrees with the Gestapo tactics of Dems – but the 3 people you cited either LOST or are out of office, therefore look AHEAD to 2010. Bush had zero to gain by saying anything negative, and everything to lose from the low brow tactics the MSM and Dems use, that you mentioned. There is also Presidential precedance that prior Presidents uphold on criticizing, unless a (D) is next to your name.

      Lessons from history are important – but when that anger muddies the proactivity of winning, we are lost.

      I am angry as hell – but using that anger for the better. We can use hard hitting tactics – but not like the dirty scum of Dem/liberal soiling our country.

  23. BigOil says:

    I recall Bush’s first outreach effort to President Elect teleprompter was a private discussion that ended with The Won promptly shooting his mouth off. That episode should have been GW’s cue to end the congeniality.

  24. brad says:

    Certainly Jimmy Carter hasn’t been able to shut his mouth for the past 28 years, or keep his nose out of politics, I don’t know why Bush has to.


    Anyone old enough to remember the Carter years, will no doubt agree, that he was probably THE WORST PRESIDENT–hands down–we have ever had.

  25. artboyusa says:

    I can’t even look at that man and his smirking face without getting angry. He still doesn’t get it. I don’t feel like I owe George Bush or the Republican Party a goodam thing but they owe me, and all of us, plenty – which they still show no signs of delivering or of even understanding their obligation. Have they ever said ‘sorry’? Have they ever taken the slightest bit of responsibility for this debacle? Hell, no.

    We’re the ones who carried water for them, we’re the ones who stuck up for them, we’re the ones who made excuses for them, we’re the ones who gave them both houses of Congress and they’re the ones, with their selfishness and their incompetence and their cowardice, who screwed it all up and delivered the rest of us into the clutches of President Barabbas Barometer and his minions for the next four, no make it eight, years.

    What do Bush and those GOP grandees care? They’re insulated. Whatever happens, they’re still rich and going to make themselves richer, they still have the perks and the privileges of office and they still think they can boss the rest of us around.

    Well, screw Bush, screw the GOP and screw the horses they rode in on. They want my support, they can work for it for a change, the miserable scum.

    Phew. Rant over. Feel better now…

  26. mybrotherkeeper says:

    Dear Odie, Sorry to say, but I think you are wrong. You can criticize someone, pointedly, without getting personal. I’m talking about Bush, obviously, not you and I. Truth can be used to cut like a knife, and stick in the memory of those “multitudes in the valley of decision.” That is, you can anger your opponents with it and persuade gullible bystanders. In this war of ideas this is crucial.
    This is why Rush is our leader by default now. We need someone who can cut through the lies with bright light, not with the gray light of compromise. Michael Steele is not that man. Rush should not be that man for he has had to concern himself with being entertaining, too. He has made way too many enemies, as a result. We need a Republican politician to do this. Someone who has passion. I think Kenneth Blackwell might have that passion and insight, who could thus provide leadership. He is not as smooth as Steele, but we need a leader right now.
    Let me illustrate: When the five finalists for RNC chairman were interviewed, one of the questions was, “What was George Bush’s biggest mistake?” The other answers were smooth, but entirely forgettable and wrapped in politics-speak. Blackwell simply said, ‘Doing the first bailout, for that opened Pandora’s box for the Democrats.’ And this was BEFORE the auto bailout, the second bailout, the omnibus bailout, and God knows what else disasters.
    Basically, we need someone like Blackwell, for he obviously GETS IT!

  27. marya says:

    History will put Bush into the pantheon of our ten greatest Americans. Forget about Lincoln. If it weren’t for him there would be no “President” Obama and any true AMERICAN knows the country would be better off for that.

  28. polemos says:

    Former President’s generally will not comment on the sitting president. That changed with Carter and his fat mouth to a small degree, and then Clinton was a real wanker off an on during the bush era. Bush imo is spot on in not taking the bait to defend himself or to comment on BHO.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »