Friday’s announcement that former President George W. Bush would not attend the Republican National Convention came as no surprise to political observers. Less than four years after leaving the White House, the second President Bush remains unpopular and is widely considered a political liability to his party. But the decision is about more than the fact that his presence at the convention might have been considered an unneeded distraction by the Romney campaign even if they would never say so publicly. As much as moving on from Bush is thought to be necessary for a GOP victory this fall, it also reflects a certain distaste for contemporary politics on the part of the former president.
In an interview on National Review Online’s “Uncommon Knowledge” program, Bush said: “I crawled out of the swamp, and I’m not crawling back in.” While his decision to remain aloof from partisanship is praiseworthy in that it shows his respect for the office he held and a belief that interference from past presidents is usually unhelpful, I think Bush’s self-imposed exile isn’t healthy for American political culture.
It is true that the last thing Republicans need is to give their opponents a chance to tie Mitt Romney to George W. Bush. Four years after succeeding W, President Obama is still blaming the 43rd president for all of his and the country’s problems. Bush’s second term was a perfect storm of problems that ranged from Hurricane Katrina to the Iraq War and left him politically crippled. It should also be admitted that some of his policies on spending and the expansion of entitlements are deeply unpopular with most Republicans these days.
But the idea that the immediate past president cannot show up at his party’s convention — a distinction he will now share with modern Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon — is unfortunate for Bush, Republicans and the country.
For all of the mistakes made during his eight years in the White House, Bush remained to the end a moral voice who reflected the decency and faith of most Americans. It also bears pointing out that the man who entered the presidency vowing to differentiate himself in every conceivable manner from Bush wound up continuing the policies on fighting terrorism that he decried while campaigning in 2008. All this points to what will be Bush’s inevitable rehabilitation in another generation or two, once the hate-filled invective directed at him fades from memory and his achievements can be viewed through a prism that is not distorted by second-guessing about the invasion of Iraq.
Bush isn’t staying completely quiet. He has authored a serious book about policy and recently visited Africa to follow up on the AIDS initiatives and other efforts to help there that he began in the White House (and for which he has not received a fraction of the credit he deserves).
But he’s wrong if he thinks he has nothing to contribute to the political debates of the day. The idea that ex-presidents should, like the Roman hero Cincinnatus, simply go home and resume life as private citizens is noble, but only to a point. Just as no one believes there is anything wrong with Bill Clinton speaking up about issues, the American people would benefit from W’s perspective. He has good reason to think he is well out of the swamp, but like it or not, that is where the nation is governed and where political ideas must be debated.
It was inevitable that Bush would decline to attend the Tampa convention and will probably remain out of sight during the campaign. He’s right when he says Romney can win without him. But let’s hope this is the last presidential election during which W will think it is the better part of valor to go to ground. We would all be better off if his voice was heard more often in the future.
It excites me a little the stories that it's possible the missing Iraq WMD's might turn up in Syria in the not too distant future. I know he can't be at the convention and that he definitely must not become the issue this election — but he was President of all Americans the way Obama is not (remember at the Super Bowl in Dallas a couple of years back, and a Super Bowl crowd isn't local, that when he was flashed on the big screen, the crowd gave him a cheer?). n nNo President has ever been as openly despised by media and celebrities with easy access to cameras and microphones and no embarrassment at all about spewing such vile threats and hatred. It would be so fine for the WMD to turn up.
He should come out of exhile to explain how the Dems are the Party of Defeat. As David Horowitz has explained in his book of that name, Howard Dean caught fire with hard Lefties and caused Senior Dems who supported the Iraq War (and who saw all of the intelligence on it) to switch to being anti-war a few months after the war had started. This was a despicable betrayal that the Dems did solely for political reasons–they saw that the future of their party was with the hard-Lefties, even if they had to abandon the age old maxim to leave politics at the water's edge. Only GWB can make this case now, but alas, he does not wish to be libeled again and risk a Republican loss. But at some point the truth must be said.
W's was definitely a flawed presidency in one respect: His failure to veto a single spending bill during his 8 years in office (I think I am correct on that). Our descent into virtually irreversible indebtedness accelerated during his administration, even with his wise tax policy. Perhaps he is too ashamed of his legacy in that regard – I really cannot know. Nevertheless, he has now chosen to abrogate his singular responsibility as a past US president: Sharing the benefit of his experiences in office with subsequent administrations and with the American people. We need all the help we can get right now and W should not choose the luxury of sitting on the sidelines for the rest of his life just because he can. I would hope that Laura Bush is pushing him to change his mind on this also.
Riddle me this, Batman. If the Bush family, including Gee Dub, has bailed from Politics Republican, why did we witness the arm-twisting of the party establishment to stay away from conservative presidential candidates in favor of such conservative-in-name-only politicians such as T-Paw, Huntsman, Barbour, Daniels and, of course, Romney. n nWho won that battle? Seems pretty clear to me.
W. brought a pea-shooter to a gun fight — he never fought for his country or for his party or for the conservative movement when he was up against a real fight with the left. n nBush simply bent over and let the left smear the country & his administration with the "Bush lied, people died" campaign. He never took the fight to the other side. n nAnd in the process Bush did serious damage to his administration, to the conservative movement, to the GOP, and to his country. n nWhen it comes to taking on the left or advancing the conservative cause in a battle with the left, Bush has always practice the policy that it is the better part of valor to go to ground. n nIt just isn't part of the family business — because the Bushes don't believe it's good for that business.
You are a disgusting moron.
Bush is doing what we had wished Carter had done. n nSo maybe we should be grateful for small favors. It could be worse, Bush could be failing to help us where we need to go out in public on a regular basis, which likely for the country and the conservative movement would be worse than going to ground.