Hello Ricocheters! Nancy Gibbs here, also posting for the first time, along with my co-author Michael Duffy.

We’ve watched with particular interest how The Presidents Club has come out of the shadows these last few days.  First came the White House reunion: 41, 43 and 44 all together for the unveiling of George W. Bush’s portrait last week, a moment of bipartisan camaraderie even as the two campaigns were hurling mudballs at each other. Meanwhile Bill Clinton, Obama’s unmatched but unbridled surrogate, was causing the White House all kinds of heartburn by calling Mitt Romney’s Bain record “sterling.” He was back on message last night, when he joined Obama for three New York fundraisers and faithfully declared the prospect of a Romney presidency “calamitous” for the country.

 We’ll discuss the Clinton Challenge later: for the moment, it is President Bush I am more curious about. At the Club reunion last week, the protocols were generally honored: “It’s been said that no one can ever truly understand what it’s like being President until they sit behind that desk and feel the weight and responsibility for the first time,” President Obama said. “And that’s why, from time to time, those of us who have had the privilege to hold this office find ourselves turning to the only people on Earth who know the feeling. We may have our differences politically, but the presidency transcends those differences.  We all love this country.  We all want America to succeed.  We all believe that when it comes to moving this country forward, we have an obligation to pull together.”

This was all but an echo of what Bush himself had said when he turned over the keys to Obama in January, 2009, with all the Club members standing by:  “We want you to succeed,” Bush said. “Whether we're Democrat or Republican we care deeply about this country. All of us who have served in this office understand that the office itself transcends the individual.”

 Which just makes me wonder: how will the Romney campaign handle the most recent Republican president—particularly this summer, as the conventions approach and the veepstakes loom and President Bush breaks silence with a new book about strategies for economic growth.

 On May 15, the day Bush endorsed Romney, the campaign issued a press release touting the support of Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison; Bush’s endorsement did not merit a mention.  The first President Bush and son Jeb have been embraced; is W. radioactive? Or due for a revival? I’d love to hear your thoughts. 

Comments:


Capt. Aubrey
Joined
Sep '10
Capt. Aubrey

I like W a great deal personally but I think it best for Romney to keep his distance. The opposition wants to link them in voter's minds and hang the blame for everything on W which we all know is unfare etc but they will continue to try because they have nothing else.

~Paules
Joined
Jun '10
~Paules

George W. Bush is rightly remembered for keeping the nation safe after 9/11.  But he was no conservative.  Tea Party supporters like myself have been preaching the need to take back the Republican party for three years and return it to its conservative roots.  This is why we are lukewarm at best toward the establishment wing of the party.  Bush I & II, McCain, and Romney are all cut from the same cloth.  The only thing that will save our nation is a return to conservative principles.  Here's hoping Mr. Romney is listening.  But I doubt it.                

flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover

Maybe a list of contraindications for the BDS cure would be helpful.

(1) Too much crow can be harmful to your digestive system.

(2) Explaining to your children that sometimes lies are necessary ( Chimpy Bushitler is coming to get you !)

(3) Hallucinations , nausea , and feeling disoriented are always present when utopian dreams crumble.

(4) Skull and Bones and the Houston Petroleum Club do not have reciprocity . Although there is an agreement with the State Department and PJ Changs ( which doesn't apply to Republicans).

(5) Others _____________?

KC Mulville
Joined
Jan '11
KC Mulville

I suspect that George W. has his own timetable for when (or if) he wants to return to a stage. My guess is that he really doesn't want to.


Joined
Feb '11
Hang On

Personally, I loathe George W. Bush. And he's bringing out a book on how to revive economic growth? That should be good for a laugh. Obama's "It's Bush's fault" line might mean something if I could see there were any difference between what O and W have done. Both Keynsians. Both interventionists. Both constitution shredders. As far as I'm concerned, Romney should be running against the pair of them.

Israel P.
Joined
Feb '11
Israel Pickholtz

There is nothing in it for Romney to tout the Bush endorsement. Did someone thing he might prefer Obama?

Bluenoser
Joined
Dec '11
Bluenoser
Hang On:  Obama's "It's Bush's fault" line might mean something if I could see there were any difference between what O and W have done. Both Keynsians. Both interventionists. Both constitution shredders. As far as I'm concerned, Romney should be running against the pair of them. · 3 minutes ago

Just like the line from the Clinton era "12 years of Reagan/Bush" we need "look what 12 years of Obama/Bush got ya"

theotherbriansmith
Joined
May '10
theotherbriansmith

What political capitol does Romney need that W. can offer?  I don't think W. could help with bolstering economic Tea Party support.  Obama, through lack of "change," has rubber stamped enough of W.'s War on Terror that Romney now has political cover in the area of defense.  Now that I actually write down this thought I am filled with a wave of Rob-Long-type pessimism about the election, but I am hoping that Romney can pace W. in the area of national security and with a Tea Party push, exceed W. (shouldn't take much) in decreasing the amount of government in our lives and business.

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
Mel Foil
Hang On: Personally, I loathe George W. Bush. And he's bringing out a book on how to revive economic growth? That should be good for a laugh. Obama's "It's Bush's fault" line might mean something if I could see there were any difference between what O and W have done. Both Keynsians. Both interventionists. Both constitution shredders. As far as I'm concerned, Romney should be running against the pair of them.

Presidents aren't free agents. When it comes to the budget, they're often hostages. Especially if they're trying to make some history in foreign policy, as both Reagan and Bush were trying to do. That said, Bush was absolutely negligent in not vetoing excess spending. If he thought going along (with Democrats in Congress)  might buy him some cooperation, he was wrong. It bought him nothing, and ruined his legacy.

One of Bush's big critics (of his spending)--Barack Obama--got into office and just tripled-down on what Bush spent. Bush would look a lot worse, except for Obama. A murderer looks bad until the cannibal serial killer comes along. Then you get a little nostalgic for simple murder.

Erik Larsen
Joined
Jan '11
Erik Larsen

Romney, ever the gentleman, will thank GWB in private, and focus entirely on Obama in public.  There will be a tacet "No Comment" (so to speak) on GWB, or his endorsement

gnarlydad
Joined
Jun '12
gnarlydad

Bush is both radioactive and due for a revival. Hope and Change circle 'round the bowl hole while folks standing in unemployment lines  remember Bush's "MISS ME YET?" billboards and grunt reluctant "uh-huhs" under their breath. Those who hated President George Walker Bush will curse him till the day they die. Initially I was not a huge Bush fan, but, boy howdy, he sure out-classes Barack Hussein Obama by just about every yardstick I can name, save one: Obama speechifies better. Impassioned preaching from teleprompters will not, however, sufficiently re-kindle our lost first love, it's goin' down the drain, and taking the populist mass swoon of 2008 along with it. Some in the MSM are even starting to catch on. America suffers a bad case of buyer's remorse. If Team Romney's smart, they'll capitalize on the current electorate's disillusionment. I'm not sure they've got the stones to weave W into their winning strategy, but if they don't, I'd lay even odds they'll wind up wishing they had. Gutsy moves like that can build some mighty hefty political capital.

Edward Smith
Joined
May '12
Edward Smith

GW Bush is not toxic, but it is too soon for his revival.  He will been seen in a much better light than Obama, and sooner. 

He was a C student in Yale, he was not the most mature student there, and that he is a Recovering Alcoholic.  He never tried to hide this.  He has sought to reform and redeem himself.

Oh, and he made up for his lackluster college career with a lot of careful reading of history.

He will outshine Obama, and certainly Carter.  That said, Clinton has already done that.

James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

Bush 43 has said for a long time that he wouldn't endorse until the convention, but he will endorse there. 41 repeated this claim during his own endorsement. 43 is very into avoiding partisanship, so it won't be a huge bomb throwing speech, but it should be a good one, and appreciated by the base.

Fricosis Guy
Joined
Jun '11
Fricosis Guy

I think of Dubya as this generation's Nixon: a man who inspired undeserved loyalty because he had the right enemies.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In