Tag Archives: George H.W. Bush

Time for ‘kinder, gentler’ America

myrna

Myrna Raffkind writes frequently for the Amarillo Globe-News.

Her most recent opinion column appeared in today’s paper. I don’t subscribe to the paper; thus, I don’t see its online edition.

A Facebook friend posted Myrna’ column on his news feed. I picked it up and want to share it here.

If you have a moment, take some time read it. Myrna is one of the more thoughtful and, yes, “kinder and gentler” people I’ve ever known.

***

“An eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind.”
— Mahatma Gandhi

After Dylann Roof’s mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in June in South Carolina, the major focus of media attention was on the display/removal of the Confederate flag and the controversy surrounding this issue. Scarcely noticed was another incident following the shooting; this incident being the reaction of the victim’s families when they were allowed to address Roof at the bond hearing. Over and over, the victim’s family members sent the same response — “We forgive him.”

Forgiveness, the willingness to suppress the urge to retaliate, is a concept that seems foreign and almost nonexistent in today’s society.
An “I’ll get you back” mentality seems to permeate the minds and hearts of many Americans. Interestingly, it seems that those who have suffered the most from genocide and abuse are often willing to forgive.

I often think of the words of Elie Weisel, a Holocaust survivor, a man who watched all of his family tortured and killed, a man who speaks for six million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust. Weisel’s words of wisdom were that we should “forgive but not forget.”

Forgive, but not forget. This is the concept echoed by the greatest leaders of our times — Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Pope Francis. All of these men are speaking on behalf of a minority group that has been abused and mistreated for generation after generation. And yet, they saw the power of forgiveness and the futility of resentment. Their own words send a powerful message.

MLK said, “We must develop the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.”

Gandhi’s words were, “The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”
Speaking on resentment, Mandela said, “Resentment is like a glass of poison that a man drinks; then he sits down and waits for his enemy to die.”

And more recently, Pope Francis stunned the Catholic world and aroused controversy when he declared forgiveness for women who have had abortions.

In Simon Weisenthal’s classic book, “The Sunflower,” he examines the possibilities and limitations of forgiveness. Wiesenthal, while a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp, was taken to visit a dying member of the SS. The German soldier asked Wiesenthal for forgiveness, and Wiesenthal’s response was one of silence. For the rest of his life, Wiesenthal wondered if he had taken the correct action. He asks 53 distinguished theologians, human rights activists, political leaders and writers what they would have done had they been in Wiesenthal’s situation. Their responses are thought-provoking as well as insightful.

Several said that forgiveness was possible, but only if it is accompanied by justice. Those who have committed atrocious acts must be punished so that we will never forget.

Other respondents, thinking of the many Germans who hid Jews in their homes or helped them escape, said that those who have a sense of collective guilt for the crimes that their leaders had engaged in could be forgiven, but never their leaders or those who perpetrated acts of genocide.

Another often-given response was that it made little difference what course of action Weisenthal took; ultimately the only one with the power to forgive was God.

Interestingly, none of the respondents advocated revenge. They note retaliation only hurts. Those consumed by anger lose their capacity for love.

It was not that long ago that President George Herbert Bush argued for a kinder, gentler America — an America that exemplified compassion and respect.

As I listen to the Republican presidential candidates, I wonder what has happened to Bush’s advice. It seems to me that the major tone of most politicians, regardless of political party, is one of anger and retribution. In the debates, there is so much bickering that little time is left for discussion of constructive and workable solutions to our nation’s pressing issues. Perhaps this is just “politics as usual,” but I cannot help but wonder if the time could have been spent more productively.

Would our country not be better off if we followed the example set by the Charleston families — of Weisel, Mandela, Gandhi and Pope Francis? If we opened our minds and hearts to forgiveness?

As Thanksgiving approaches, we reflect on our many blessings, some of which are the freedom to think for ourselves, to express ourselves and to recognize the greatness of our country rather than its shortcomings. Let us bear this in mind as we say our Thanksgiving prayers, and as we strive for a kinder, gentler America.

Bush 41 deserves to be heard

ghw bush

I’ve long thought that George H.W. Bush might have been the most qualified man ever to hold the office of president of the United States.

His resume is sparkling: World War II fighter pilot, business executive, envoy to the United Nations and China, head of the CIA, Republican Party chairman, congressman, vice president.

Now, in the twilight of a long and glorious life, he has chosen to speak out on matters of which he knows plenty. He has offered stinging critiques of former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for the way they advised President George W. Bush — Bush 41’s eldest child — on how they conducted foreign policy.

Bush 41 has been chided in return by Rumsfeld, who said the 91-year-old former president “is getting up there in years.” Hmm. Well, Rumsfeld ain’t exactly a spring chicken himself, at 83.

But my point here, I suppose, is that a man with President Bush’s distinguished public service career deserves to be heard and not dismissed as someone just getting a little long in the tooth.

He is in frail health these days, suffering from a form of Parkinson’s disease. He was interviewed over the course of nine years by author Jon Meachem, whose new biography on the former president is about to be published. From all that I’ve heard about President Bush, his mind is still sharp and he can articulate cogent and thoughtful commentary on issues of the day.

He referred to Cheney and Rumsfeld as being “iron-ass” about foreign policy. True, the nation was struck hard and hurt badly by the 9/11 attacks, but Bush 41 insists that Cheney became someone he didn’t recognize from the time the then-vice president served as defense secretary in 41’s administration.

History is still being written on the presidencies of both men named Bush. I look at George H.W. Bush view of his son’s time in the White House as one more important puzzle piece that eventually will complete the picture.

The former president’s thoughts shouldn’t be dismissed.

 

Trump vs. Kelly: Round Two

donald

It fascinates me to no end to watch Donald Trump lash out at the media.

The leading Republican presidential candidate (depending on whose poll you believe) is going after Fox News’s Megyn Kelly yet again.

He’s chiding her for not citing a poll she once cited when his poll standing was slipping. Now that he’s back up again — for the life of me, I don’t understand this — he’s calling out Kelly for ignoring the survey data.

This begs the question about how Trump might react to media criticism in the event hell freezes actually over and he gets elected president of the United States a year from now.

What on God’s Earth is he going to do when the heat gets really, really hot and he makes a serious blunder and insults the wrong individual here at home or abroad?

And as every president since the beginning of poll-taking has observed, their approval ratings go up and down. President George H.W. Bush was at 90-plus percent approval — remember? — when he launched the Persian Gulf War and our troops kicked the invading Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

That was in early 1991; the president lost his bid for re-election the following year.

This is a strange political season. The kinds of insults and personal attacks that used to scar candidates for life now have  become the preferred method of campaigning … or so it appears.

What has become of us?

 

What’s happened to the budget deficit?

BudgetDeficit

Remember the federal budget deficit?

Do you also remember how Republicans used to rail against it and how Democrats used to ignore it? Republicans said the deficit would keep growing and would bankrupt the nation. Democrats insisted that the government needed to “invest” public money on public projects.

Flash back to the 1980 presidential campaign.

  • GOP nominee Ronald Reagan’s campaign ran TV ads that parodied House Speaker Tip O’Neill and the Democrats in Congress as wasteful spenders. President Carter oversaw a deficit that “ballooned” to about $40 billion.

Reagan won the election in a landslide.

What happened then? President Reagan fought for tax cuts and exploded defense spending. The result: the federal deficit effectively tripled.

Let’s move ahead to the 1992 election.

  • Democratic nominee Bill Clinton ran against President George H.W. Bush, proclaiming “It’s the economy, stupid.” The nation was struggling through a recession. Clinton won the election. Then the Republicans took control of Congress after the 1994 mid-term election.

What happened after that? The Democratic president, working with the Republican-led Congress, balanced the budget. Clinton left the White House in 2001 and the budget was running a hefty surplus.

  • Republican George W. Bush was elected in 2000. Then came the 9/11 terrorist attacks. President Bush pushed through more tax cuts, but then took the nation to war against terror groups overseas. The result of that effort? The deficit returned and exceeded $1 trillion annually.

But the argument evolved into something else. It didn’t matter that the deficit was exploding, the president and his allies contended, because it constituted a minuscule portion of the Gross Domestic Product. Didn’t the vice president at the time say, “Deficits don’t matter”?

Well, I guess they did.

  • OK, now we come to the 2008 election. The economy has tanked. Financial institutions are going under. The housing market has crashed. So has the auto industry. The deficit was exploding.

Democrat Barack Obama won the election. He got Congress to kick in billions of dollars to jump-start the economy and bail out some of the leading industries.

What happened then? The economy began to recover. The jobless rate, which zoomed to 10 percent, began inching its way back down. Today it stands at 5.1 percent.

Oh, the deficit? It’s been cut by two-thirds.

It’s still too great. It’s a long way from the surplus delivered by President Clinton and his friends in the GOP-controlled Congress.

However, the traditional argument delivered by Republicans that deficits are bad and that Democrats are to blame for spending us into oblivion no longer is relevant.

Just think: The presidential campaign that’s unfolding before us has been called one that defies all conventional wisdom.

I believe the history of the federal budget deficit suggests conventional wisdom got tossed aside long ago.

 

Conspiracy comes back

conspiracy

Conspiracies never die. They’re immortal. They have more lives than thousands of cats.

Who killed JFK? What did FDR know about Pearl Harbor? Was 9/11 an inside job?

These things make me crazy.

Now comes the “vast right-wing conspiracy” put forwarded by Bill and Hillary Clinton. It’s back.

Bill Clinton to join the fight

The former president says all this talk about e-mails and whether his wife, the former secretary of state and current Democratic presidential candidate, is part of the “right-wing conspiracy” cooked up by his foes as he was considering a run for the presidency way back in 1991.

I wish he and his wife, Hillary Clinton, would leave that argument alone.

President Clinton told CNN about a menacing phone call he got from the White House as he was preparing to challenge President George H.W. Bush. The caller allegedly told the then-Arkansas governor he’d better not run, or else his foes would dig up tons of dirt on him.

Media officials — such as Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, no slouch as a journalist — said the call never occurred. Others have said the same thing.

Hillary Clinton coined the term “vast right-wing conspiracy” early in her husband’s presidency. She said conservatives conspired to cook up lies about the president in an effort to destroy him.

There’s little doubt that some of the allegations of wrongdoing were bogus. Was it all part of a concerted conspiracy? No one has yet come close to proving that to be the case.

The conspiracy theory, though, is back.

Oh, brother.

 

Trump to launch third-party bid? Oh, boy!

Donald Trump says the Republican National Committee had better treat him right at its presidential nominating convention, or else …

He’s going to run as a third-party candidate for president of the United States.

Wow! Where do I begin?

Exclusive: Trump threatens third-party run

Trump has been hammering the daylights out of his GOP foes. They, too, have returned the fire. The name-calling, insults and cheap shots are piling up all around the knees of the principals.

Trump, who will not be the nominee, is going to insist on a prime-time TV slot to make his speech. His Republican foes don’t want that. They’re going to insist he gets pushed aside, forced to speak at some pre-prime time spot, or perhaps not at all.

But truth be told, RNC officials must be shivering in fear at the prospect of a Trump third-party candidacy.

Trust me on this: He’ll take far more votes from the Republican electorate than he would from the Democratic side — unlike the 1992 independent candidacy of Ross Perot, who gets blamed by Republicans for costing President George H.W. Bush re-election that year and for handing the election to the young Arkansas governor, William J. Clinton.

Polling data from that election, though, suggests something quite different. It is that Perot took votes equally from both Clinton and Bush and that without the third man in the fight, Clinton would have been elected anyway.

Does anyone believe Trump would have a similar impact on a 2016 general election if the nominees are, say, Republican Jeb Bush and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton?

If the RNC is smart, it’s going to give Trump the prime-time spot he desires, let him yammer his nonsense, then show him off the stage, escort him out the door and then let the nominee accept his party’s nomination.

However, the RNC will have to determine which course of action will do the party the least harm.

Heck, it might decide that giving this guy maximum exposure at its nominating convention isn’t worth the reaction he’s going to get.

Let’s all stay tuned.

Happy birthday, Mr. President

On the occasion of former President George H.W. Bush’s 91st birthday, I feel moved to tell you my George Bush Story.

It’s not all that grand, but it kind of speaks to the issue of: What does one say to someone who’s done so much in his life?

The former president came to Amarillo in 2007 to speak at a symposium about leadership. The event occurred at the Globe-News Center for the Performing Arts. As editor of the editorial page for the Amarillo Globe-News, I received an invitation to “have lunch with President Bush.” Yes, I know that sounds high-falutin’. I use that phrase to make a little fun of myself, as I was one of about 200 or so “special guests” who broke bread with the 41st president.

He said a few words, thanked all the right people and we all concluded our lunch.

Then came another special moment. I was among some in the lunch crowd who got invited to a picture-taking session with president.

So, the president left the room to prepare for what’s known in the newspaper business as the classic “grip-and-grin” session. We followed him out of the room and then stood in line.

Here’s where a bit of trauma set in: trying to decide what to say to someone who’s done what this man has done over the course of lengthy and incredibly varied public service career.

Think about it. He was a naval aviator during World War II, and was shot down on a combat mission in the Pacific; he served in Congress for two terms, representing the Houston area; he served as chairman of the Republican National Committee; U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; head of the CIA; special envoy to China; vice president of the United States; then was elected president of the United States.

Not a bad dossier, correct. Indeed, I’ve said for years that George H.W. Bush arguably was the most qualified man ever to serve as president and commander in chief.

So, what does one way when you shake this man’s hand?

I settled on nothing at all original, witty or memorable.

I merely said, “Mr. President, thank you so much for the service you gave to this country.”

The more interesting element of that 45-second encounter, though, was his response. He bowed his head as he thanked me for the expression of gratitude. He asked me for my name and what I did for a living.

I truly hope he understood I was sincere in saying what I said.

Then it was over. I received a framed picture of “George Bush and me” a couple of weeks later. It’s on my bedroom dresser. I’m proud of it.

Happy birthday, Mr. President.

 

Fox News’s power is overrated

I want to share this link with readers of this blog.

It comes from Jack Schafer, senior media writer for Politico. com and it offers an interesting analysis of the power that Fox News has — or doesn’t have — on the rest of the media and the voting public.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/fox-news-liberals-118235.html?hp=t1_r#.VWNDQFLbKt8

Schafer’s analysis is most interesting in that he relies heavily on the thoughts of a known political conservative — Bruce Bartlett — to make the case that Fox’s actual power overrated.

Bartlett has served as a key policy guy for Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and remains devoted to his political principles. He believes Fox is hindering his party’s effort to advance and to return to the White House. Fox News, he contends, is appealing to the narrowest wing of the GOP.

Schafer notes an element of Fox’s strategy that I found quite interesting: “One thing Bartlett gets absolutely right in his critique is how Fox seized on the repeal of government censorship of the airwaves (also known as the Fairness Doctrine and the equal-time rule) to create a news outlet that would cater to the country’s underserved conservative audience. You don’t have to be a Fox fan to credit the network with reintroducing ideological competition to the news business, which began to fade at the midpoint of the 20th century.”

I don’t watch Fox News routinely. Maybe I should. It leans away from where I lean; I suppose the older I get the more vulnerable I feel when my blood pressure elevates as the veins in my neck start throbbing. For that matter, I am having trouble watching MSNBC these days, but for a vastly different reason: MSNBC’s predictable liberal slant has become boring.

Schafer takes note of “reliably liberal” New York Times columnist Frank Rich’s assessment of Fox News: “The median age of a Fox viewer is 68, eight years older than the MSBNC and CNN median age, and its median age is rising. ‘Fox is in essence a retirement community,’ Rich writes, and a small one at that! ‘The million or so viewers who remain fiercely loyal to the network are not, for the most part, and as some liberals still imagine, naĂŻve swing voters who stumble onto Fox News under the delusion it’s a bona fide news channel and then are brainwashed by Ailes’s talking points into becoming climate-change deniers,’ he writes.”

The bottom line is that Fox News isn’t the political juggernaut its viewers think it is.

This is a most interesting analysis. Take a look.

 

Obama finds friends in GOP

Republicans have made it their mission — a lot of them, anyhow — to trash Barack Obama as some sort of wacked-out Marxist/socialist who is intent on the destruction of the country that elected him as president of the United States.

So, what does the president do? He locks arms with Republican members of Congress and decides it’s really all right to support a free-trade agreement with a dozen Asian nations — which runs counter to where the base of his Democratic Party stands, or so it appears.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/trade-bill-clears-senate-hurdle-118178.html?hp=t4_r

The GOP-led Senate has just shut down a filibuster that had stalled the fast-track legislation to get the free trade agreement approved and sent to the president’s desk.

Obama’s major allies in this deal happen to Republicans. The Senate was acting chaotically as senators scrambled between discussion groups to hammer out some kind of deal.

What’s up with that?

I happen to believe in a freer trade than what we’ve had for so long. The world is shrinking and nations or even continents no longer can shield themselves from influences of other nations and continents.

So the free trade agreement likely now will get approved. It will end up on the president’s desk. He’ll sign it.

I’m hoping to see a lot of Republican lawmakers — along with centrist/moderate Democrats — standing with the president when he puts pen to paper.

It’s a scene we haven’t witnessed too much during the Obama administration, but which used to be a regular occurrence during the past presidencies of, say, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Government works better when both parties can find common ground. So help me, it works almost all the time.

 

 

Libraries make the to-do list

I made a declaration today while driving home from church.

The next time we’re in Dallas, I told my wife, I want to visit the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum.

For that matter, the next time we get to College Station, I want to see the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library.

What’s more, I now intend to see all the presidential libraries before I check out — even those that aren’t yet built.

Some folks want to see all the national parks (I’m one of them, too), or visit all 50 states (I’ve set foot in 47 of ’em), or ride every roller coaster in the country (I’ll pass on that one, thank you very much).

Presidential libraries offer up a fascinating view of history — from the perspective of the individual whose history is being examined.

I did a quick count of the libraries I’ve already seen: The Lyndon Johnson library in Austin, the Herbert Hoover library in West Branch, Iowa, the (Jimmy) Carter Center in Atlanta. That’s it.

Without question, of the three presidential libraries I’ve visited, the most compelling one was — get ready for this — the Hoover library. Why?

Well, I knew about the Great Depression occurring on President Hoover’s watch. I knew that he lost re-election in a landslide to Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932.

What I didn’t know when I visited the library with my wife and then-infant son in 1973 was that President Hoover was a tremendous humanitarian. He helped feed much of Europe after World War I. President Woodrow Wilson named him as head of the U.S. Food Administration after the United States entered the conflict in 1917.

The Hoover library, which isn’t a pretentious site, devotes a tremendous amount of space to explaining his humanitarian work and, quite naturally, doesn’t tell the visitor all that much about the Great Depression.

***

My interest in the George W. Bush library is rather personal. I didn’t vote for him in 2000 or 2004, or for Texas governor in 1994, for that matter. However, I have some personal affection for the 43rd president.

I was privileged to have three conversations with him, starting in 1988, when he and I rode an elevator together in New Orleans during the Republican National Convention that nominated his father to run for president. I said, “You’re George W. Bush, yes?” He nodded. He asked me my name. I told him and said I was the editorial page editor for the Beaumont Enterprise. “Oh, I’ve heard of you,” he said.

Sure thing, George. He hadn’t yet been elected to any public office, but he was a natural politician.

I met him seven years later, after moving to Amarillo. I was granted a 90-minute interview with him in the governor’s office at the State Capitol Building in Austin. The meeting was supposed to last 45 minutes. I found him to be charming, engaging, funny — and smart. He had been governor just a few months during the first half of 1995 and I found him to be a quick study on Texas government and public policy.

We met again three years later as he ran for re-election. He remembered our previous meeting in 1995 and we kind of caught up on some things we discussed in Austin.

It’s a safe bet I’ll get to his library on the Southern Methodist University campus. I might make the visit on our next trip to the Metroplex, which is certain to happen soon, thanks to the presence of our granddaughter, Emma.

I doubt I’ll see anything there that details the mistakes he made during his two presidential terms, such as the Iraq War and the economic free fall. Then again the LBJ library doesn’t deal too much with the intense criticism the president got over his Vietnam War policy, nor does the Carter Center tell you much about the “malaise” he implied gripped the nation during his four years in office.

But I do want to see W’s version of his presidential history and perhaps judge it against what I understand about it.