Some good news on a Friday!

George Bush always seemed disinterested in politicing, government, campaigning, etc… This weekend he will confirm that as reported

by Sam Stein in the Huffington Post:

I don’t want to go out and campaign for candidates. I don’t want to be viewed as a perpetual money-raiser. I don’t want to be on these talk shows giving my opinion, second-guessing the current president. I think it’s bad for the country, frankly, to have a former president criticize his successor. It’s tough enough to president as it is without a former president undermining the current president. Plus, I don’t want to do that. In other words, in spite of the fact that I’m now on TV, I don’t want to be on TV … I tell people that one of the interesting sacrifices, I don’t think you sacrifice to run for president, but to the extent you do is you lose your anonymity. I like the idea of trying to regain anonymity to a certain extent. And being out of the press, at least in this stage of the post-presidency is something that makes me very comfortable and its somewhat liberating, frankly.



Now if only he can take Rove and the Cheney family with him.

Share:

Related Articles

27 thoughts on “Some good news on a Friday!

  1. I suppose if you were going to post this, it was too much for you to say that his comments were right and honorable.

    “I think it’s bad for the country, frankly, to have a former president criticize his successor. It’s tough enough to president as it is without a former president undermining the current president.”

    It’s nice to see this, rather than Bill Clinton who did criticize Bush while in office and out there still trying to build a “legacy.”

    1. Exactly what we’d expect from a blind partisan.

      Because not publicly criticizing the President has to mean he’s stupid – it couldn’t possibly mean that he’s chosen not to make it public.

      I know I shouldn’t bother asking, but how exactly is this “pure selfishness?”

    2. Yeah right, it is selfish of him not to be out there criticizing President Obama?! Are you KIDDING me? If he was doing that, you and others here would be the first ones denoucing Bush for badmouthing Obama. It has been a tradition of some former presidents not to comment on the current officeholder. I for one am glad to see him doing so. It’s CLASSY.

  2. I am far from a blind partisan. Dubya is checking out of politics completely. I think that democracy works best when everyone is involved. There is a lot, you would think, that an ex president could do to help this country.

    It’s you guys who think that the only way he can be involved is to criticize Obama. Look at all of the great work president Carter has done. While lhe did criticize bush, that is a small part of what he has done. The fact that he wants nothing to do with anything, to me, shows selfishness.

    1. Just because he doesn’t want to be mouthing off on TV or raising money for campaigns, doesn’t mean he isn’t engaged. He served as president for 8 years. You think it is selfish for him to want to live a life in peace and out of the spotlight? I wish Jimmy Carter didn’t mouth off so much, because he’s always making himself look foolish.

      I didn’t say the the only way for him to be involved was to criticize Obama. I was just responding to his words in the quote you provided: “I think it’s bad for the country, frankly, to have a former president criticize his successor. It’s tough enough to president as it is without a former president undermining the current president.” That’s all he is saying. You honestly disagree with that?

      You also are contradictory in saying it is good news that he does not want to be on TV all the time and then blasting him because he doesn’t want to. Can you at least pick one argument and stick to it or are you just trying to pick a fight here?

    2. Bush was also engaged enough to go to Haiti when President Obama asked him to after the earthquake. I believe that is admirable and appropriate.

      1. I agree with that. I don’t think Bush is a bad man by any means – I think he was just a terrible president. It’s sort of like he has many things he would have loved to do differently, but hindsight is always 20/20.

    3. I am far from a blind partisan.

      LOL. You’re posts always lack any sort of consistent underlying principle or. Your position on an issue depends solely on whether you like the person and his/her party. A Dem says or does something – it’s good. A Republican does the same, thing, it’s bad.

      Dubya is checking out of politics completely. I think that democracy works best when everyone is involved. There is a lot, you would think, that an ex president could do to help this country.

      So politics == democracy. There’s no way to contribute to the country without being involved in party politics and airing his opinions in the media. Gotcha.

  3. I think it’s a good idea he hasn’t criticized the administration after him, if only because even people with his own ideology with common sense could even rip how he did things apart with the screw ups of his administration. It would leave him open for more things against which is why I think he’s probably going to stay out of the political spot light for years to come. Many people — not just liberals, but many in general still don’t have a high opinion of how he handled things so I think this is a good move on his part.

    From my knowledge, he’s staying away from partisan politics completely, and only really helping with just causes like say tragedies that happen in like Haiti alongside with Bill Clinton. I think that’s a pretty smart move.

    1. I don’t believe his decision to avoid weighing in on Obama has anything to do with a fear of opening himself up to criticsm. If that were the case, he wouldn’t have written a book or done interviews for it, because that also opened the door to revisit arguments against his decisions. He is simply following a tradition, one that his father also upheld after losing to President Clinton.

      1. Considering what he said in the said book it seemed that to me that a lot of that criticism towards him did do a number on him and he did take to heart. If you read the book, he slipped back into drinking.

        I think it’s partially because he knows what he did wrong with this country and has been told it many times already thus why he’s staying out of the way to live a more comfortable and reclusive lifestyle. He knows on some level, what that position Obama is in now and that’s why he’s not going to say anything against him.

        1. “If you read the book, he slipped back into drinking.”

          Um, what page is that on?

          My point is that he is not staying out the way now because of fear of more criticism. In the book he admits mistakes and/or his rationale for why he made the decision he did at the time, but I thought did a good job of explaining what he did and why some of those decisions are correct in the long run. Regardless, none of that has anything to do with him not criticizing Obama now.

          1. There were inconsistencies with the book itself, while it started with an anecdote that he stopped drinking, I think one of his ghost writers may have slipped that in. ( Now days, there are so many ghost writers for books now days it isn’t funny. It’s been a while since I read the book, it’s a bit fuzzy on what page it was on. I got the book from the library so I might get it again to find the exact page. )

            You cannot deny in the last few years of his presidency he looked so out of his depth with the increasing criticism even from former supporters seemed to be getting to him.

            I stand by the fact he’s a good person – just a terrible president and he very well knows that thus why he prefers to stay low for a bit. Similar how President Nixon was a terrible man but knew how to properly run the country.

            1. Nixon knew how to properly run the country?! Wow.

              I think if Bush had admitted to lapsing back to drinking, it would have been big news in the media when the book came out. Yet, I don’t recall any such reports nor do I remember reading that. Maybe you read too much into something?

              Yes the last few years of his presidency he was beleaguered, no thanks to contant attacks by the media (wonder where that is now?), and even Harry Reid calling the president a liar and a loser (wonder why none of those liberals talked about civility back then?), and Harry said the surge would never work, even though Bush was proven right after he left office.

              1. Nixon was a corrupt and terrible type of person, the lowest of the low. However look at the economy, look at how things were running, he got us out of Vietnam, and while karma ultimately bit him in the behind for his terrible actions? He still had a massive popularity – even without the Watergate Scandal he would have won. Other than Gerald Ford, that was the last Republican President with a thing called logic.

                Maybe it’s because the conservatives never took personal responsibility and dodged every criticism made at them. At least liberals have the decency to admit they were at fault when they were instead of clinging to delusion and justifying every action from left to right.

                I wouldn’t expect a blind partisan conservative remember him taking a few drinks – after all your side doesn’t seem to remember Ronald Reagan all that well either. He didn’t give a rat’s ass about most of the things conservatives go on about, he was more concerned in his first term with making an insane military against the Russians if anything else.

                If you really worship him that much you would have clearly remembered him on those said interviews when asked about his drinking in the white house he said he did. I won’t even go into the case of hearing his body guards making the commentary in the first place, unless you’re assuming people who serve to protect the president.

                Regardless, I don’t think ill of him if he did drink. Sometimes, someone needs a drink.

                1. “At least liberals have the decency to admit they were at fault” — When did that happen?!? I must have missed it.

                  “I wouldn’t expect a blind partisan conservative remember him taking a few drinks” — What?! Like you saw him on TV doing this? How would we REMEMBER it? My point was, if he had admitted to doing that, the press would have made that a major revelation when his book came out. Would have been asked in the interview he did with Matt Lauer, etc. I don’t recall hearing about it. There’s no partisanship about it. If you have proof, provide it.

            2. Again, the fact that he published a book and did a number of interviews doesn’t follow your theory about “laying low.” The only way he is laying low is his word not to slam Obama and choosing not to raise campaign money — two moves that show his class and character, not out of hiding or embarassment of his record.

      2. I don’t believe his decision to avoid weighing in on Obama has anything to do with a fear of opening himself up to criticsm.

        It most certainly has nothing to do with it. He’s absolutely aware of the criticism of him. And there’s no doubt, that will continue – what he says or does now has absolutely zero effect on the degree to which people criticize his Presidency.

        1. They’ll continue to criticize him for sure – no matter how you look at it from both conservative, moderate, and liberal angles he screwed us up. But the difference is he will be out of the spotlight to do whatever he wants for the rest of his life. The criticisms will still exist, but it wouldn’t be rekindled and reminded.

          He won’t have to deal with the harassment which does take a mental toll on him. After all, as he said he has no interest to be in politics anymore nor does he pay attention to it. That sounds like a person who is just tired of what he had to go through and just wants to live his life without having to deal with that anymore.

          I stand by it’s both by a class of his character and also because of his record. Why can’t it be possibly be both? He proves himself to be classy and he can go live a peaceful life without having to deal with that said criticism again since he has grown weary of politics.

  4. *. I so don’t carry the water for the democrats. You can find more criticism of the deems on this site, then you can of the republicans on all the right wing sites combined.

    * when your an ex president it’s very hard to do things in private, yes. Plus he has a voice and a platform. He is choosing not to use.

    *. I am personally glad he is checking out of politics yes, his was a train wreck of a presidency. It shows that many on the left were correct when they said he was pnot intellectually curious and had little interest in governing.

    *while Nixon did some good things, like coming up with “obamacare”. The man was a horrible person and a traitor to our country. Listen to the obj tapes and he talks of nixon secretly negotiating to keep the war going to help his election chances. Lbj’s biggest failure is in not arresting him for treason then. We could of then rid ourselves of the insidiousness of Cheney, rummy,liddy, etc…

    * while nix

    1. *. I so don’t carry the water for the democrats. You can find more criticism of the deems on this site, then you can of the republicans on all the right wing sites combined.

      I’m sure in your mind that’s true. In the real world, where you are what you post, it’s just not supported by facts.

      The second sentence – that’s a lie. There are a handful of democrat/liberal posters here who will criticize their own at times. Not you – never you. But there are certainly others who do. I’m sure it’s more than some of the extreme right sites criticize their own. But to say it’s more than all of them individually or certainly in aggregate is simply delusional.

      *. I am personally glad he is checking out of politics yes, his was a train wreck of a presidency. It shows that many on the left were correct when they said he was pnot intellectually curious and had little interest in governing.

      Hey #$#@$ – he’s done with public office, just like every other former President, the governing is done for him. I know you like to throw out things about what is & is not democratic. How the hell is an un-elected person governing in any way in line with democracy?

      *while Nixon did some good things, like coming up with “obamacare”. The man was a horrible person and a traitor to our country. Listen to the obj tapes and he talks of nixon secretly negotiating to keep the war going to help his election chances. Lbj’s biggest failure is in not arresting him for treason then. We could of then rid ourselves of the insidiousness of Cheney, rummy,liddy, etc…

      * while nix

      Wow, must be some medical grade stuff there. Nixon came up with obamacare.

  5. 1. You can find on here where i have had many not very kind things to say about Mike Tate, Ron Kind, Russ Decker, Dave obey, Herb Kohl, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Chvala, etc…

    2. I never said he should govern I said he had little interest in governing when he was actually supposed to be governing. You like to read things that are not there. What I said is as an ex-president, he should use his platform for something worthwhile. Ending poverty perhaps? I am sure there is a worthy cause that could use his efforts but he seems little interested in anything, it has been his career MO so its not surprising.

    3. Nixon in his 1974 state of the union called for comprehensive health reform legislation that was even more to the left of what obama passed. SO yes Nixon was the original model to what turned out to be “obamacare”.

    1. “What I said is as an ex-president, he should use his platform for something worthwhile”

      He’s only been out of office for two years, during which time he helped in Haiti relief and wrote a book. After 8 years, he’s not allowed to take a breath and enjoy some time with family and such? Give him time. You are giving Obama more time than 2 years to even attempt an economy fix, and he’s actually in office!

        1. I guess there’s not much to discuss after a comment like that. Um, er, how’s that earwax problem coming along?

  6. I think it’s likely that Francis Fox Piven is behind the earwax epidemic. The plan is probably to flood America’s otolaryngologists with so many patients that the resulting paperwork will bring down the system. And I’ll bet George Soros has been investing all his money in Q Tips. Those diabolical bastards!

    I’m sure Glenn Beck and Rush will expose it all soon.

Comments are closed.