Tag Archives: George H.W. Bush

Uncategorized

Carter surprises on 'Meet the Press'

Former President Jimmy Carter amazes me.

He’s 89 years young. His voice is still strong. His mind is still sharp. He apparently can still pound a nail with a hammer while building houses for Habitat for Humanity. He also surprises folks with candid answers to difficult questions.

He did so twice today on a “Meet the Press” interview with NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/former-president-jimmy-carter-im-being-spied-on-nsa

First, he said he fears the National Security Agency is monitoring his e-mails. So, when he corresponds with foreign leaders, he does so the old-fashioned way: He writes notes with pen and paper and mails them via the Postal Service. He is concerned about people’s privacy being harmed by NSA snooping.

Frankly, I believe the former president — being who he is and the job he once held — might have reason to be concerned far more than, say, yours truly or almost any other of the 300 million American citizens.

The second thing he told Mitchell was surprising, and disappointing. Does President Obama consult with the 39th president on foreign policy matters? Mitchell asked. Carter said no.

He noted that other men who succeeded him as president — Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — all have sought his counsel over the years during difficult crises. Barack Obama hasn’t done so.

It’s disappointing to learn that about Obama. It’s not entirely surprising, given what some of his critics have said about his go-it-alone strategy in thinking through some stressful problems. Others in Washington have noted that President Obama doesn’t prefer to dicker and negotiate with legislators and that, too, is in keeping with what President Carter said in the interview broadcast Sunday.

The ex-presidents’ club is one of the most exclusive “organizations” in the world. So few of them are alive at any given time. In Barack Obama’s case, he’s got four of them with whom he can consult. Few men have made decisions as monumental as these men have made and their counsel should be welcome.

I have no knowledge, of course, about who the president calls when the going gets tough. It does sadden me to learn he hasn’t bothered to call one of them with a good bit of knowledge and life experience upon which to lean.

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

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

Political foes can become friends

These kinds of stories give me hope that all may not be lost in U.S. politics.

Former first lady Barbara Bush says she “loves Bill Clinton.” She might not agree with him politically, but she is truly fond of the 42nd president of the United States, who in 1992 defeated the 41st president — Barbara’s husband, George.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/195946-barbara-bush-i-love-bill-clinton

Democrat President Harry Truman detested his successor, Republican Dwight Eisenhower. They reportedly grew closer as the nation mourned the assassination of Ike’s successor, John F. Kennedy.

GOP President Gerald Ford and Democrat Jimmy Carter waged a fierce campaign in 1976. Carter won, but the new president and his immediate predecessor forged a warm friendship that lasted until Ford’s death.

Carter never developed that kind of relationship with Ronald Reagan, who beat him in 1980, nor did Reagan form a bond with Walter Mondale, whom he clobbered four years later in a landslide re-election.

George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s friendship seems to be real. Mrs. Bush talks about her husband becoming the father Clinton never had. She says President Clinton visits the Bushes annually. “We don’t talk politics,” Mrs. Bush says.

You hear about these kind of inter-party friendships from time to time. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, had a warm friendship with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. Talk about coming from differing ideologies, parties, lifestyles, cultures … you name it. Yet they were big-time pals.

One of President Barack Obama’s closest friends in the Senate today is Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. You can list all the differences there, too, and wonder how these men — and their wives — have become so close.

Too little of this kind of camaraderie exists today, with partisans on either side viewing the other guy as the enemy, rather than just a political adversary.

Take a lesson, folks? Given the nastiness of the campaign her husband waged against Bill Clinton, there’s reason to believe you can make nice with your foes.

One word of advice, however: Don’t ask the 41st president his feelings about H. Ross Perot, the third man in that 1992 campaign. His feelings for the Texas billionaire aren’t nearly so magnanimous.

Uncategorized

Mandela was no pork-barrel politician

They’re burying Nelson Mandela today in his hometown of Qunu, in a remote eastern region of South Africa.

Indeed, the remoteness of the great man’s home brings me to an interesting point. Listening to NPR on Friday, I heard something that caught me by surprise. A Qunu villager actually was critical of Mandela for — are you ready for this? — failing to bring more modernity and infrastructure to his hometown.

The news report detailed how much hassle it would be for Qunu to prepare for this event that is drawing worldwide attention. The village lacks many modern amenities. Roads are unpaved. There’s virtually no lodging available for visiting dignitaries. Qunu lacks much of the sewage and fresh water infrastructure that is needed to accommodate the visitors.

The individual being interviewed wondered why “Madiba,” as Mandela is called, would have neglected his hometown while basking in the glory of international acclaim and reverence.

Interesting, I thought.

I’ve tried to ponder the implications of that criticism.

Imagine, then, this scenario playing out. Suppose Barack Obama would steer road and bridge development to his south Chicago neighborhood, or perhaps to Hawaii, the state of birth. Imagine if you will George W. Bush directing federal money to Crawford, Texas, where he vacationed often while he was president and where he has a small ranch; Crawford could use some highway improvements, too. What if Bill Clinton had done the same for his hometown of Hope, Ark., or George H.W. Bush done so for Houston (which doesn’t need as much federal help as many small towns in America)? Hey, Ronald Reagan came from a small town in Illinois, Dixon. Couldn’t that town have used a little presidential push to build infrastructure? Same for Plains, Ga., Jimmy Carter’s hometown.

Any of those men would have been accused of promoting pork-barrel politics above the national interest.

Might that have been the case for Nelson Mandela, who presided for a single term — from 1994 to 1999 — over what’s been called a “developing country”? Its gross domestic product goes only so far and it well might have raised more than a few eyebrows if Qunu had received money that could have been spent in other struggling villages.

Mandela will be buried today. The town will erect a suitable monument to its iconic son.

My hunch is that Nelson Mandela eventually will bring much in the form of tourist money to Qunu now that he’s gone.

His greatness lives on.

Uncategorized

Gerald Ford: right man, right time

The columnist David Shribman takes note of an anniversary that few people will remember.

I must say this one got by me, but I am glad Shribman wrote this essay commemorating the 40th anniversary of the confirmation of Vice President Gerald Rudolph Ford.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/12/01/the_steady_hand_of_gerald_ford_120822.html

The date will arrive on Friday.

It should be noted that an embattled President Richard Nixon made many correct decisions during his time in office, right along with some horrendous ones. Selecting the then-House minority leader to become vice president was among the best decisions of Nixon’s presidency.

Spiro Agnew had quit in disgrace. He ended up pleading no contest to bribery charges. Nixon looked high and low for a suitable replacement. He found it in Ford.

As Shribman notes, Ford was one of 17 men to ascend from vice president to president. Of course, Ford’s place in history is unique, given that he never was elected to either position. He would become vice president on Dec. 6, 1973 and then, on Aug. 9, 1974, he would take the oath of office as the 38th president of the United States.

Gerald Ford healed the nation ravaged by scandal. Yes, he stirred up a terrible controversy a month into his presidency when he pardoned Nixon. He was criticized roundly for that action. I remember, though, how the late Sen. Edward Kennedy — one of Ford’s harshest critics at the time of the pardon — admitted to the error of that criticism as he issued the former president a John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in 2001. “Mr. President, I was wrong,” Kennedy said to Ford.

President George H.W. Bush called Ford a “Norman Rockwell painting come to life,” in remarks at Ford’s funeral.

Fate came calling one day four decades ago and the nation was blessed to have had Gerald Ford on hand to heal its wounds.

Uncategorized

‘Court-packing scheme’ is specious argument

The National Review Online is supposed to be a respected publication.

The editorial attached to this post, however, suggests that the folks who run the publication fail to understand a key component of the U.S. Constitution. It’s the part that gives the president of the United States the authority to make critical executive and judicial branch appointments.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364556/nuclear-fallout-editors

The NRO is upset with Senate Democrats’ decision to invoke the so-called “nuclear option” as it relates to the filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took the highly risky step as a way to allow President Obama to have his appointments cleared from a Senate that had obstructed them through the use of the filibuster. It once took 60 votes out of 100 to break a filibuster. It now takes just 51 votes. The rule change involves all appointments except those involving the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Senate has nuked itself.

The NRO, though, says that the filibuster is secondary to what it says is the real reason for the action. “The filibuster is a minor issue; the major issue is that President Obama is engaged in a court-packing scheme to protect his dubious agenda, and Harry Reid’s Senate is conspiring with him to do so,” the NRO writes.

A number of judicial appointments have been blocked by Senate Republicans that have nothing to do with the qualifications of the men and women selected. Obama seeks to fill them because, well, he is the president and the Constitution gives the person in that office the authority to act. Yes, the Constitution also gives the Senate the right to “advise and consent” to the nominations. That role, though, should be on the basis of whether someone is qualified for the job.

I’ve long believed strongly in presidential prerogative. I’ve also believed that presidents who win elections have earned the right to pick whomever they wish to key positions. This might surprise some readers of this blog, but I supported the nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991 of one Clarence Thomas, despite the uproar that arose from his selection when a woman accused him of sexual harassment.

The complaint was never proved. Thomas was qualified to serve on the highest court. Was he the kind of judge I would have picked? No. That job, though, fell to the man who was elected president in 1988, George H.W. Bush. Therefore, the president had earned the right to seat someone of his choosing on the court.

Barack Obama has precisely the same right as any of the men who’ve served before him. The Senate shouldn’t serve as a place where these nominations are stopped because of some trumped-up scheme manufactured by his political opponents.

Court-packing? Give me a break. President Obama’s job involves making appointments. Let him do that job and let the people he selects be examined on the basis of their qualifications.

Uncategorized

Cheneys learning terrible lesson about fame

The Cheney family is being schooled on the terrible price famous clans must pay at times.

Their family feuds become public spectacles. The exposure goes with the territory.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd brings it all home with her latest essay.

The story has been told and retold many times in recent weeks. Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, wants to be the next U.S. senator from Wyoming. She’s challenging a long-time fellow Republican, incumbent Mike Enzi. She’s trying to outflank Enzi on the right, which is a hard thing to do, given the senator’s impeccable conservative voting record.

But in doing so, Liz has managed to offend her sister, Mary in the deepest way imaginable. Liz says she opposes gay marriage. Mary is gay and is married to Heather Poe. They are the parents of two children.

Daddy Cheney has declared his support for gay marriage. He also supports Liz’s campaign for U.S. senator. The Cheneys also used to be pals with the Enzis. Then we have another prominent Wyoming pol, former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson, who is mortified at what’s transpiring with his friends the Cheneys — and the Enzis.

Why should anyone beyond this tight circle of family and friends care? Because Dick Cheney served for eight years as vice president of the United States. Before that he was secretary of defense during the George H.W. Bush administration. Before that he was a congressman from Wyoming and before that he served as White House chief of staff to President Gerald Ford.

He’s a public man. His business becomes our business, even if it involves his daughters — both of whom have been in the public eye themselves.

Fame at times exacts a terrible price from those who seek it.

Uncategorized

GOP sets new impeachment standard

I have concluded something sad about today’s Republican Party: It has reset the standard for impeaching the president of the United States.

Some GOP members of Congress are so intent on impeaching President Obama that at least one of them admits to having dreams about it. For what reason? What precisely are the “high crimes and misdemeanors” the president committed that warrant such a drastic act? They aren’t saying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/us/politics/ignoring-qualms-some-republicans-nurture-dreams-of-impeaching-obama.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Suffice to say that it appears — to me, at least — that Republicans, led by the tea party wing of their party, have decided impeachment is one way to get rid of a guy they dislike, whose policies they detest.

It has gotten me to thinking about whether this new standard would have come into play during previous recent administrations. Was it plausible, therefore, to impeach:

* President Ford, for issuing a summary pardon to his predecessor, Richard Nixon, for any crimes he might have committed against the nation?

* President Carter, on whose watch the Iranian hostage rescue mission went so horribly wrong, causing the president and his national security team tremendous heartache?

* President Reagan, who misled the nation during the Iran-Contra crisis, which resulted in arms sales to the Contras in Central America while negotiations were underway with the rogue Iranian government that was holding seven American hostages?

* President George H.W. Bush, who promised never to raise taxes as long as he was president, and who then reneged on that solemn pledge?

* President George W. Bush, whose national security team — along with much of the rest of the world — sold Americans a bill of goods that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had a huge cache of chemical weapons? Turns out, after we invaded Iraq in March 2003, there were no such weapons — anywhere.

The answer to all of those, of course, is “no.”

You’ll notice, naturally, that I didn’t include President Clinton in that roster of past leaders. The House did impeach Clinton … for having an affair with a White House intern and then lying to a federal grand jury about it. In my view, the GOP set a pretty low standard for impeachment then as well. The Senate then tried Clinton, but acquitted him.

Are we heading back down that path now, with Republicans simply drooling over the possibility of impeaching a president?

They’re going to have to come up with a whole lot more than they’ve presented to date as reasons to do such a thing. And to date, they’ve produced nothing.