George HW Bush passes away
Klinker said:
conandrob240 said:You are saying you should get words you don't deserve? If you don't mind me asking, why?
unless you’re some hideous human being of no value, I don’t think that should be true.
No. I’m saying if there are decent, good aspects of a person’s life, then maybe we should say and reflect on those the day a person dies. There was (will be) plenty said about the negative aspects of this Presidents legacy. No ones trying to make him a saint. But he was a man worthy of some respect and dignity in death.
Klinker said:
DaveSchmidt said:Sure. Agree to disagree.
Klinker said:You asked a question. I provided an answer. If you don’t buy it, that’s up to you.
One wonders whether it was ok to speak honestly of GHWB on Monday, before he died. At what point in the future will honesty again be appropriate?
To be fair, I don't think that GHWB was entirely a monster. He was just a man with weaknesses and strengths who was shaped by his times, the donors to his campaigns and his ambitions. He certainly wasn't either the worst or the best President of my lifetime.
As likely are you (and all of us). Should someone stand up at your funeral and list all the bad things you’ve done?
conandrob240 said:
Klinker said:As likely are you (and all of us). Should someone stand up at your funeral and list all the bad things you’ve done?
DaveSchmidt said:Sure. Agree to disagree.
Klinker said:You asked a question. I provided an answer. If you don’t buy it, that’s up to you.
One wonders whether it was ok to speak honestly of GHWB on Monday, before he died. At what point in the future will honesty again be appropriate?
To be fair, I don't think that GHWB was entirely a monster. He was just a man with weaknesses and strengths who was shaped by his times, the donors to his campaigns and his ambitions. He certainly wasn't either the worst or the best President of my lifetime.
An MOL thread is not a funeral.
oh, I was confused, thanks for clarifying that.
I think most people (even you) likely get the point I was trying to make. You can feel free to substitute “MOL thread” for “ funeral” if it works better for you.
conandrob240 said:
oh, I was confused, thanks for clarifying that.
Your confusion was evident. Drummerboy is entirely correct. Also, this is the Soapbox: All Politics forum. A thread that was limited to eulogies would probably appear in Virtual Cafe.
conandrob240 said:
As likely are you (and all of us).
I can only speak for myself but the list of people who have died because of my actions is probably substantially shorter than that of that of GHWB. If I had been President in his place, I would like to think that it would still be substantially shorter (although it would undoubtedly be longer than its current incarnation).
ml1 said:
but what are the odds that will anyone start a discussion on GHWB on MOL after this? This is our opportunity if we want to have an honest assessment of his public life.
Klinker said:
To be fair, I don't think that GHWB was entirely a monster. He was just a man with weaknesses and strengths who was shaped by his times, the donors to his campaigns and his ambitions. He certainly wasn't either the worst or the best President of my lifetime.
For what it’s worth, Klinker, I’d say that’s an assessment, brief as it is, that contains some grace.
What can grate on people, I think, is when honesty is invoked to immediately zero in on the negative points of a career. The merits of an all-critical approach include (a) it really is someone’s honest assessment — which I don’t doubt in ml1’s case — and (b) it provides a corrective to panegyric praise. But I can empathize with those who crave a little light when someone, even a public official, hits The Tunnel.
Also FWIW, I’ve always had a soft spot for anyone who can laugh at himself:
GL2 said:
No bone spurs for this guy.
That's the truth. Whatever else you may say about the man, he was no chickenhawk.
it’s fine. I didn’t know him. I have no skin in the game. I just think your approach is kinda gross.
ml1 said:but what are the odds that will anyone start a discussion on GHWB on MOL after this? This is our opportunity if we want to have an honest assessment of his public life.
Thank you.
There is a story in "What It Takes" about the Republican Establishment deciding to dump Bob Dole as RNC Chair and replace him with George in the aftermath of Watergate. They all, including Bush, kept it a secret from Dole and Bush then went to met him under some phony pretext and essentially pumped Dole for all info he would need on becoming Chair. When later Dole was dumped and learned the truth he said about Bush sarcastically "Some guy!"
George HW Bush was the "gopher". They sent him to be Chair of RNC after Watergate. After the CIA was totally discredited by Congressional Investigations Bush was appointed Director.
He derided Reagan's "supply side economics" as "Voodoo Economics" and then when Reagan put him on the ticket as VP endorsed those economics.
When he ran for President he said he was "in the room" for every important discussion at the WH during Reagans Presidency except whenever they discussed Iron-Contra when by coincidence he just happened to be the men's room.
His first official act as Presidential candidate was picking Dan Quayle to be "one heartbeat away.
Then came Willie Horton and vicious attacks on Dukakis's patriotism.
And the came his longest enduring legacy which everyone seems to conveniently overlook:
He had it backwards. Listen to and read all the tributes.
conandrob240 said:
Klinker said:No. I’m saying if there are decent, good aspects of a person’s life, then maybe we should say and reflect on those the day a person dies. There was (will be) plenty said about the negative aspects of this Presidents legacy. No ones trying to make him a saint. But he was a man worthy of some respect and dignity in death.
conandrob240 said:You are saying you should get words you don't deserve? If you don't mind me asking, why?
unless you’re some hideous human being of no value, I don’t think that should be true.
So, if someone is a serial killer and they die, we should think of the good things they did? Kinda hard to get over that part.
nan said:
conandrob240 said:So, if someone is a serial killer and they die, we should think of the good things they did? Kinda hard to get over that part.
Klinker said:No. I’m saying if there are decent, good aspects of a person’s life, then maybe we should say and reflect on those the day a person dies. There was (will be) plenty said about the negative aspects of this Presidents legacy. No ones trying to make him a saint. But he was a man worthy of some respect and dignity in death.
conandrob240 said:You are saying you should get words you don't deserve? If you don't mind me asking, why?
unless you’re some hideous human being of no value, I don’t think that should be true.
Equating a serial killer with George Bush is....odd.
conandrob240 said:
oh, I was confused, thanks for clarifying that.
I think most people (even you) likely get the point I was trying to make. You can feel free to substitute “MOL thread” for “ funeral” if it works better for you.
yes . clearly confused. You assume the same rules apply in all venues. They don't.
Jaytee said:
Formerlyjerseyjack said:No he did not start it. Saddam started it by invading Kuwait.
Jaytee said:--- Sorry. It must'a been Obama who started the Iraq War.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:Are you serious?
Jaytee said:Clinton, Obama and W.... Neither Clinton nor Obama have hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths on their hands.
We can find negative things to say about just about any president, maybe every single human being. Hell....even Clinton and Obama and W will get a roasting when they pass ...
It just says a lot about someone who carries hatred around.
Obama has Syria... Libya....Yemen..and all of the Arab spring..,oh..how about IS?
Sadam started Gulf War I by invading Kuwait --- after Sadam had implied permission from our state department representative, April Glaspie.
But we are talking about W.
W. invaded Iraq after pretending there were nuclear arms being built by Saddam. Remember, "We must act before the mushroom gun becomes a smoking cloud? And it was all lies.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
Jaytee said:Sadam started Gulf War I by invading Kuwait --- after Sadam had implied permission from our state department representative, April Glaspie.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
Jaytee said:
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
But we are talking about W.
W. invaded Iraq after pretending there were nuclear arms being built by Saddam. Remember, "We must act before the mushroom gun becomes a smoking cloud? And it was all lies.
I thought this thread was about the death of Bush sr. You somehow managed to bring up the issue of hundreds of thousands of deaths Bush sr was responsible for. This is not about W. How many times must we talk about the invasion of Iraq? Back and forth with the same arguments.
drummerboy said:
nan said:Equating a serial killer with George Bush is....odd.
conandrob240 said:So, if someone is a serial killer and they die, we should think of the good things they did? Kinda hard to get over that part.
Klinker said:No. I’m saying if there are decent, good aspects of a person’s life, then maybe we should say and reflect on those the day a person dies. There was (will be) plenty said about the negative aspects of this Presidents legacy. No ones trying to make him a saint. But he was a man worthy of some respect and dignity in death.
conandrob240 said:You are saying you should get words you don't deserve? If you don't mind me asking, why?
unless you’re some hideous human being of no value, I don’t think that should be true.
Yeah, well I was thinking of something I read earlier and it made sense to me.
If You Murdered A Bunch Of People, Mass Murder Is Your Single Defining Legacy
US presidents are not special. They are not made of any different kind of substance than you or I. When they order the extermination of large numbers of human lives for no legitimate reason, they are as guilty as you or I would be if we murdered each and every one of those people ourselves, personally. And if you or I had done such a thing during our lives, we both know people wouldn’t be spending their time after we die talking about how delightful and charming we were.
I always liked Bush Sr. I thought he was a decent guy at his core and a class act who tried to do the right thing. Lived a helluva life. I think the first Iraq war was justified and Bush was a master diplomat in building a true coalition, entirely different from his son’s shameful folly in Iraq.
I also remember Bush Sr. presidency fondly because IMO it was the last presidency before toxic hyper partisanship set in - started with Bubba and has only increased with W, O, and now dotard.
Bush wasn’t perfect of course, but IMO he was a good president and a good man.
nan said:
conandrob240 said:So, if someone is a serial killer and they die, we should think of the good things they did? Kinda hard to get over that part.
Klinker said:No. I’m saying if there are decent, good aspects of a person’s life, then maybe we should say and reflect on those the day a person dies. There was (will be) plenty said about the negative aspects of this Presidents legacy. No ones trying to make him a saint. But he was a man worthy of some respect and dignity in death.
conandrob240 said:You are saying you should get words you don't deserve? If you don't mind me asking, why?
unless you’re some hideous human being of no value, I don’t think that should be true.
Nope. Read better.
So, what makes a person bad enough that we don't have to only say nice things about them. Speeding? Tax fraud? Assault and Battery?
Having created this rule, I think you have an obligation to flesh it out a little.
conandrob240 said:
As likely are you (and all of us). Should someone stand up at your funeral and list all the bad things you’ve done?
when I die I'm cool with anyone posting here saying they thought I was a dick on MOL.
Reagan did the 'Welfare Queen'. H.W. Bush #41 did Willie Horton. George W. Bush did Bridget campaign against McCain. Trump did Central Park Five and Birther.
No matter how you look at it, they are all racists.
ml1 said:
conandrob240 said:when I die I'm cool with anyone posting here saying they thought I was a dick on MOL.
As likely are you (and all of us). Should someone stand up at your funeral and list all the bad things you’ve done?
We would never let that aggression stand.
dave said:
ml1 said:We would never let that aggression stand.
conandrob240 said:when I die I'm cool with anyone posting here saying they thought I was a dick on MOL.
As likely are you (and all of us). Should someone stand up at your funeral and list all the bad things you’ve done?
you won't abide?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/01/george-hw-bush-legacy-222730
George Bush, Sr., has died, and our national media have begun the familiar rituals of presidential passings: round-the-clock pieties on cable news, fond tributes from associates, the inevitable softening of the rough edges. This isn’t surprising. There’s ancient wisdom in the Latin aphorism de mortuis nil nisi bonum (speak nothing but good of the dead). The urge to prettify a politician’s legacy upon his demise is understandable and in some ways reflects our finer selves. Bush’s family, friends and admirers deserve comfort in their grief.
But when it comes to presidents and historical actors of consequence, we also need critical dissent. When writing my first book, Nixon’s Shadow, about that president’s endlessly protean image, I found myself grateful that at the time of his funeral—a whitewash that minimized his constitutional crimes—sober, serious historians like David Halberstamand Garry Wills stood up to provide corrective reminders. Had they not done so, future readers might have believed that Nixon’s attempted comeback had succeeded when in fact it did not. Respect for the dead must coexist with respect for the historical record.
In the case of George Bush, this balancing act means acknowledging not only his positive qualities and achievements—as so many news outlets have already copiously done—but also what may have been his defining political hallmark: his cynicism. From his opportunistic criticism of the 1964 Civil Right Act, to his 1980 election season embrace of supply-side economics and anti-abortion politics, to his last act as president—pardoning many of the Iran Contra crew in order to protect himself—there was a recurring tendency to place short-term gain above longstanding values.
yahooyahoo said:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/01/george-hw-bush-legacy-222730
George Bush, Sr., has died, and our national media have begun the familiar rituals of presidential passings: round-the-clock pieties on cable news, fond tributes from associates, the inevitable softening of the rough edges. This isn’t surprising. There’s ancient wisdom in the Latin aphorism de mortuis nil nisi bonum (speak nothing but good of the dead). The urge to prettify a politician’s legacy upon his demise is understandable and in some ways reflects our finer selves. Bush’s family, friends and admirers deserve comfort in their grief.
But when it comes to presidents and historical actors of consequence, we also need critical dissent. When writing my first book, Nixon’s Shadow, about that president’s endlessly protean image, I found myself grateful that at the time of his funeral—a whitewash that minimized his constitutional crimes—sober, serious historians like David Halberstamand Garry Wills stood up to provide corrective reminders. Had they not done so, future readers might have believed that Nixon’s attempted comeback had succeeded when in fact it did not. Respect for the dead must coexist with respect for the historical record.
In the case of George Bush, this balancing act means acknowledging not only his positive qualities and achievements—as so many news outlets have already copiously done—but also what may have been his defining political hallmark: his cynicism. From his opportunistic criticism of the 1964 Civil Right Act, to his 1980 election season embrace of supply-side economics and anti-abortion politics, to his last act as president—pardoning many of the Iran Contra crew in order to protect himself—there was a recurring tendency to place short-term gain above longstanding values.
But he could pronounce nuclear and the airplanes he flew patrolled the Pacific and not just Texas air bases. Plus he served for the duration.
https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/snl-george-h-w-bush-dana-carvey-impression-762386/
Fast forward to 1:45 in the video.
I think part of the difficulty of eulogizing (+ & -) this guy is that he's yer classic New England Brahmin - always publicly polite, self-effacing, graceful, mannerly, even while he's OK'ing the Horton ad using scumbags Ailes/Atwater, or just doing the day-to-day dirty work of running the white-shoe company that kept the hoi poloi in its place...
Along comes Trump, Rodney Dangerfield-ing his fat Burger King @$$ into the mix...and with all those "icky" crew members. Yer basic Caddyshack thing.
BTW, I know there aren't many Maureen Dowd fans here but her GHWB piece is sweet, if somewhat self-referential.
The Trump option is transparent I guess; but it's so much more abhorrent on its surface. At least the Bush-level elite kiss you first.
I suppose mass murderer is a matter of degree.
Although the numbers can be a bit challenging to suss out, it appears that President Obama authorized somewhere in the vicinity of 550 drone strikes on middle eastern targets during his tenure. (the reported rate is one strike about every 5 days). It is estimated that those strikes killed about 3,000 combatants and over 100 civilians...although both numbers are thought to have been under-reported by the Obama administration and the military. And, this does not include the number of people killed in Afghanistan during his years in office. Comparatively, about 100,000 people were thought to have perished in Gulf War I under George Bush.
Not quite sure what constitutes the threshold for "mass murder" but I'm pretty much good with over 3,000 victims (plus how many ever were killed in fighting in Afghanistan) falling within that classification. I voted for him twice and greatly respect President Obama but under the "If You Murdered A Bunch Of People, Mass Murder Is Your Single Defining Legacy" criteria, I suppose President Obama deserves at least an honorable mention.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
Sure. Agree to disagree.
To be fair, I don't think that GHWB was entirely a monster. He was just a man with weaknesses and strengths who was shaped by his times, the donors to his campaigns and his ambitions. He certainly wasn't either the worst or the best President of my lifetime.