Tag Archives: George W. Bush

Uncategorized

Here comes Bush 3.0

George Prescott Bush likely is going to become the next Texas land commissioner.

He’s setting the stage for yet another Bush to stand tall over the Texas political landscape, now that he’s won the Republican Party primary for the statewide office.

Oh, boy.

http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/politics/story.aspx?id=1014927#.UxxUOFKYat8

Bush — who’s known as “P” — has never held elected office. He’s a fairly recent resident of Texas, where he’s been practicing law. On paper, P’s political resume looks pretty thin.

Except that he’s got some pretty good Texas political blood running through his veins. His grandpa is George H.W. Bush, the 41st president of the United States; his uncle is George W. Bush, the 43rd president. That makes him a third-generation Bush — and a Texan to boot — who’s entering the political arena.

I should add that he’s got another key element working in his favor. His mother is Columba, born in Mexico and married to Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor. P speaks Spanish fluently and figures to employ his bilingual skills quite nicely as he tours the state in the next several months in search of votes.

I am not going to poke fun at P for seeking to follow the trail blazed by grandpa, Uncle W and Dad. The landscape is full of political dynasties. Does the name “Kennedy” mean anything? How about Cuomo? The Rockefellers have done pretty well, too. “Udall” remains a pretty strong brand in the Southwest and Mountain West.

All of this dynasty talk does bring to mind, though, the shutting out of other candidates who otherwise might have at least as much to offer the votes as someone named Bush, or Kennedy, or Cuomo.

These are like the sons and daughters of famous actors who end up with starring roles even though they might not possess the talent of their famous forebears. Or the sons of famous athletes who take roster spots on teams that should go to other, more talented players; Mickey Mantle Jr. and Pete Rose Jr. are two notable sports failures who come to mind immediately.

If P succeeds as land commissioner — and I hope he does — then he’ll have shown that he’s more than just a famous name.

Uncategorized

Irony taints Obama critics

There’s a certain irony attached to the criticism that keeps pouring in from the right regarding President Obama’s handling of the Ukraine-Russia crisis.

They gripe that the president is feckless and ineffective in his handling of the crisis that has seen Russian troops roll into Crimea after Ukraine ousted its pro-Russia president.

The irony? It is that the criticism itself undermines the president/commander in chief as he seeks to work out some kind of response in conjunction with our allies.

Putin dismisses warnings from Obama

Didn’t we hear similar concerns about the left’s continual carping during President Bush’s two terms? Russia sent troops into Georgia in the final full year of Bush’s presidency, which caused a lot of hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing. The left was wrong to undermine President Bush’s efforts — and the right is wrong to do the very same thing to President Obama.

It was the great Republican U.S. senator from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg, who coined the axiom about politics “ending at the water’s edge.” He meant that partisan critics of presidents ought to hold their fire when the president is acting in his role as head of state during an international crisis.

This is precisely what Barack Obama is trying to do now as he works with our allies to find some kind of diplomatic solution to Russia’s meddling in what should be a solely internal matter to be decided by Ukraine.

The carping from the right is emboldening Russian president/strongman Vladimir Putin and it isn’t helping end the crisis.

Uncategorized

Hey, didn’t Russia invade Georgia … in 2008?

The criticism of President Obama’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine crisis of 2014 ignores the Russia-Georgia crisis of 2008.

Six years ago, Russian dictator/president Vladimir Putin invaded Georgia, another one of those former Soviet satellite states. The U.S. president at the time, George W. Bush, let it happen. What could President Bush to stop Putin? Nothing. What should he have done? Go to war? That’s a tough call, given that the United States was already involved in two shooting wars at the time, Iraq and Afghanistan.

I’m left to wonder: Where was the criticism from the right back then? It was silent.

Move forward to the present day. Russian troops are sitting in Crimea, a region of Ukraine. There might be more military involvement from Russia, which is nervous over the ouster of pro-Russia president by insurgents in Ukraine.

What’s President Obama supposed to do? What can he do? Does he go to war with Russia? Well, of course not.

Yet the criticism is pouring in from the right, from the likes of Sen. John McCain, former defense boss Donald Rumsfeld, former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, every right-wing talking head this side of Sean Hannity. They’re all bemoaning the “invasion” of Russian troops of a sovereign country, Ukraine.

Oh, but wait. Didn’t this country invade a sovereign country, Iraq, in March 2003 because — we were told — the late dictator Saddam Hussein had this big cache of chemical weapons?

President Bush told us once that he peered into Putin’s “soul” and saw a man of commitment and integrity. Well, that soul also belongs to a former head of the KGB, the former Soviet spy agency.

I’m thinking another key Republican, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has it right. He’s telling his fellow GOPers to tone down the criticism while the president tries — along with our allies — to manage a dangerous crisis.

Uncategorized

Time for some more apologies?

The columnist Larry Elder has posed a fascinating — and quite appropriate — notion about political apologies.

He notes that Second Amendment firebrand Ted Nugent, the rocker who sort of apologized for calling President Obama a “subhuman mongrel” — was correct in offering up at least that tepid statement of regret. Although the one-time rock star didn’t actually apologize, he’s gotten his share of deserved media criticism over his many remarks about the president of the United States.

Elder then wonders whether it’s now time others on the left to say they’re sorry for the things they’ve said over the years.

He mentions film director Spike Lee — who, like Elder, is an African-American.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/27/ted_nugent_apologized_–_when_will_spike_lee_121737.html

Elder ticks off a list of some of Lee’s outrageous statements.

* Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader, was right to suggest that the George W. Bush administration deliberately blew up the levees and caused New Orleans to flood in 2005, affecting tens of thousands of African-American residents of that city.

* Someone should shoot National Rifle Association chairman Charlton Heston.

* Former U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., is a “card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan” because he said some kind things about one-time segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond.

You know, Elder is spot on with his analysis of the political climate these days. In fact, I think a whole round of apologies would be in order in an effort to clear the air, let bygones be bygones and perhaps enable all sides to get back to discussing intelligently the pertinent issues of the day.

The tone of these comments — and I’ll include Nugent’s among them — disgrace the right of free speech. Yes, the Constitution gives citizens the right to speak their minds.

With that right, though, ought to come some sense that citizens are contributing constructively to whatever debate we’re having.

Well, Mr. Lee, how about an apology? It’ll be good for your soul. Besides, it might start a cleansing process.

Uncategorized

Former president takes up cudgel for vets

My goodness, we have come so far as a country in lifting awareness of the needs of our military veterans.

Take the latest initiative headed by former President George W. Bush.

The 43rd president talked today on ABC’s “This Week” with correspondent Martha Raddatz about a effort he has launched through his presidential library in Dallas in conjunction with Syracuse University.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/02/president-george-w-bush-fights-to-take-disorder-out-of-ptsd/

His intention is to help veterans returning from combat reintegrate into civilian life. The former president told Raddatz about the “military-civilian divide.” Civilians, said the president, don’t understand all that veterans have endured fighting for their country.

He talked of the emotion he feels when he is in the presence of these heroes, many of them he sent into combat during his two terms as president.

How far has the nation come? Many, many figurative miles.

We can go back to the Vietnam War. Did returning veterans get this kind of attention when they returned from that conflict? Hardly. They were ignored and often scorned. No need to rehash that sorry episode.

It all began to change when the Persian Gulf War vets returned home from that brief, but intense, conflict in 1991. Then came the 9/11 attacks, which led to the war we have been fighting against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and the Iraq War.

Bush wants to remove the “D” from the PTSD label. Post traumatic stress isn’t a “disorder,” said the president. It is a condition that requires the nation’s attention.

President Bush has made quite an effort to stay out of the partisan political battles that have raged since he left the White House in 2009. This battle, though, is worth his time and effort.

I am glad he is willing to fight it on behalf of our veterans.

This veteran thanks you, Mr. President.

Uncategorized

George P. campaigns in the dark

George P. Bush — nephew and grandson of two presidents and the son of a former governor — was thought to be a natural candidate for public office in Texas.

Then he launched a campaign for Texas land commissioner and promptly hid from view, more or less.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/george-p-bush-snubbed

He hasn’t submitted to lengthy interviews by newspaper editorial boards or made speeches from the stump of any substance. “P” — as he says he’d like to be called — makes brief appearances here and there and then drives or flies off to the next stop.

Well, P, what gives?

P was a huge hit at the 1992 Republican National Convention when, as a 16-year-old speaking for his grandfather — President George H.W. Bush — he exhorted the Houston Astrodome crowd with his enthusiastic “Viva Boosh!” declaration. P’s parents, of course, are Jeb and his Mexico-born mother, Columba and the then-teenager was thought to embody the GOP’s outreach to Latino voters.

He brought that cachet to this year’s land commissioner race, or so many observers thought.

As Paul Burka notes in the blog link attached here, the Austin American-Statesman endorsed businessman David Watts for the GOP nomination. The paper apparently was frustrated by P’s refusal to meet with the editorial board, which is a curious posture for a neophyte candidate campaigning for a statewide office, given that Austin is Texas’s capital city.

I won’t predict how this land commissioner primary will turn out March 4.

If P wins and then takes office in January, he’ll need to acquire some media relations skills, which would come in handy if he hopes to parlay a land commissioner post into something more visible.

Uncategorized

Yes, GOP needs to ‘change’

Rand Paul says the Republican Party needs a radical makeover if it hopes to win the presidency in his lifetime.

Interesting, coming from a Kentucky senator whose philosophies have played a part in the GOP’s losing strategy the past two presidential election cycles.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-without-change-gop-will-not-win-again-in-my-lifetime/

Paul says the party cannot “tinker around the edges.” It needs radical change, he said.

Here’s an idea: Why not return to the ways of the Republican old guard, you know, the guys who won while running behind the likes of George H.W. Bush, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush?

They’re all different, to be sure. Ike was a war hero who was destined to win the presidency in 1952. He governed from the middle and helped oversee a period of unprecedented prosperity during the bulk of the 1950s. Richard Nixon he turned out to be a disgrace and doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with Ike, Reagan or the Bushes.

Ronald Reagan was a true-blue conservative. However, he didn’t demonize his foes. He befriended them after hours and worked with Democrats whenever opportunities presented themselves.

George H.W. Bush — in my mind — was arguably the most qualified man to serve as president. War hero, ambassador to the U.N., congressman, special envoy to China, party chairman, CIA director and vice president. He also was a mainstream politician who also could work with the other guys.

W. campaigned as a “compassionate conservative” and while he made some mistakes — the Iraq War and his hands-off financial policies that contributed to the economic collapse at the end of his presidency — also sought to govern reasonably.

The change Paul has called for cannot take his party down the do-nothing road. Government has to play a role in helping people. Republicans and Democrats need to look proactively common ground instead of looking for reasons to oppose one another.

Paul is calling for a “more diverse party.” How he’ll seek that diversity remains a mystery, given the GOP’s insistence on laws that make voting more difficult, seeking to block efforts to improve the immigration system, continuing to meddle in people’s personal lives and putting the interests of wealthy Americans above those of the rest of us.

I want the Republican Party to reshape itself. Honest. It’s got to emerge in the manner that Rand Paul says he envisions, and not in the form of some crazy cabal of kooks — many of whom have taken the Grand Old Party hostage.

Uncategorized

Cruz upset we haven’t caught Benghazi terrorists

Right-wing politicians and their pals in the right-wing media just won’t let the flames from Benghazi smolder and die.

Benghazi refers to the U.S. consulate in Libya that was attacked on Sept. 11, 2011. Four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. It was a terrible event. The right wingers keep stirring the pot looking for things to hang on Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was then secretary of state and is a possible candidate for president in 2016.

Then comes Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to weigh in today on the Fox News Channel. I caught a snippet of the interview today on TV while at work. He was offering up the usual stuff about accountability and trying to assess blame on Clinton over her department’s response to the chaos that erupted in the Libyan city.

Then he made the one point that caught my attention: He’s upset that “17 months to the day we haven’t yet brought the terrorists responsible for the attack to justice.”

Seventeen months later and we still haven’t caught the bad guys. Does that really upset you, Sen. Cruz?

Allow me to put this into a little different perspective.

Osama bin Laden plotted the attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, nine months into George W. Bush’s presidency. U.S. forces went to war the following month in Afghanistan. We looked for bin Laden and nearly had him in Tora Bora. He got away.

Then, after President Bush had left the White House, U.S. intelligence analysts located bin Laden in Pakistan. Nearly 10 years after the 9/11 attack, President Barack Obama ordered a team of Navy SEALs, CIA operatives and Army Special Forces pilots into Pakistan to kill the terrorist mastermind.

They did the deed.

It took a long while, nearly a decade.

I’m pretty sure we’ll get the individuals responsible for the Benghazi attack. It’s going to take some time. That’s how meticulous intelligence-gathering works.

Let’s stop the carping, Sen. Cruz.

Uncategorized

Ready for court fight, Mr. President?

The overheated and inflated response of congressional Republicans to President Obama’s vow to use executive authority to move issues forward would make you think the president is imposing some brand of imperial law on the country.

It’s not happening.

See you in court, says GOP

The sound had barely been turned off in the House of Representatives chamber after Obama’s State of the Union speech Tuesday night before we heard GOP lawmakers proclaiming the president was overstepping his constitutional authority, was trying to crown himself King Barack the First or seeking to render Congress totally irrelevant.

Give … me … a … bleeping … break.

Barack Obama’s use of executive orders is but a fraction of its use by many of his predecessors. He’s acted in such a manner less frequently than President George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, two heroes of the GOP right/far-right wing.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., believes Obama is abusing “the intent of the Constitution.” Really? What precisely is that intent, senator? He doesn’t offer specifics, other than to rattle his sword and bluster about taking the Obama administration to court.

Let’s quit hyperventilating here. President Obama’s legal team is fully aware of the constraints placed on him by the Constitution. He cannot write law. He cannot raises taxes. He cannot increase the minimum wage for every American — but he can, and did, raise the minimum wage for some Americans, such as federal government contract employees. This is small stuff, ladies and gentlemen of the GOP.

Let’s lose the righteous indignation and take Barack Obama up on another pledge he made at the State of the Union: let’s work together.

Uncategorized

Huckabee reveals his truer self, apparently

Hey, wasn’t Mike Huckabee supposed to be the voice of a new brand of “compassionate conservatism,” a term made popular by another prominent Republican, a guy named George W. Bush?

The former Arkansas governor and ordained Baptist preacher — who also happens to play a pretty good bass — once was considered a good guy even among those who likely wouldn’t vote for him.

Now comes this little item.

“If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it. Let us take that discussion all across America.”

Gov. Huckabee made that statement to a Republican gathering just this week — and has reopened the firestorm relating to why the GOP keeps doing so badly among women.

“Uncle Sugar.” What an endearing term. As one commentator said this week, such terminology in street lingo is meant to refer to pimps. Here’s a preacher, a man of God, suggesting Democrats are trying to persuade the “women of America” that they need good ol’ Uncle Sugar to provide them with contraceptives because they just can’t control their desire to have sex.

I rather liked the compassionate conservative Mike Huckabee. This version of himself, which he rolled out when he became a Fox News TV commentator and talk show host, is quite unappealing. I only can imagine what the women of America will be thinking once they start considering the 2016 campaign for the U.S. presidency.