Originally Posted By TomSawyer No speeches at the RNC? Not even a recorded howdy? Why isn't the GOP trotting out Dubya?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Well W did leave office he did say President Obama deserves his silence. And for the elder, I'm not sure maybe it has to do with him being 90.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The answer on Bush I is easy- he's now 88 years old, has developed Parkinson's, and is mostly confined to a wheelchair. No more jumping out of airplaines on his birthday for him. Bush II is an entirely different matter. Rumors are prevalent. The official story is he wants to remain out of the limelight. If there's anything to the rumors then that's probably true, because the overriding thing you hear, especially from members of the military our family knows and who have White House access, is that he has Alzheimer's, and it started before he left office. While still the president but towards the end of his time, he couldn't remember the names of Secret Service personnel who had been with him for years for example, and his days became very scripted. He needed someone at his shoulder to remind him of many things at all times. For those not familiar, the early onset of Alzheimer's is often hard to detect, because the symptoms can be confused with someone who is simply forgetful because of stress or just tired, obviously another condition that goes with being President. But apparently, since he left office, it's manifested itself in many other ways, and he's been diagnosed, according to our friends in the military. They say this is why we saw more of Cheney than we ever have of any VP while in or out of office, for what it's worth. It isn't as if Bush II isn't functional, but appearances nowadays ae very carefully managed, so they say.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm all for past Presidents being just that. Every time people start to feel good about Carter he opens his mouth and says something that is controversial and most certainly upsets the person currently holding the office. Clinton is a great speaker, don't get me wrong. But the convention became about him last night (as one would expect) and I don't know if that is what the administration wanted. Obviously they wanted a shorter speech from him and he doubled his time once again showing us it's all about "me". I think Bush II was right to stay in the background these last 4 years and I see it as a sign of respect.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 FWIW, both Bushes DID do a "recorded howdy" (together). It was shown to the convention delegates and you saw it if you watched gavel to gavel, but it wasn't anywhere near prime time.
Originally Posted By ecdc 1) I think Bush II genuinely does want to stay out of the limelight. 2) That is not in conflict, however, with the simple fact that he's toxic for the current Republican party. He still represents the financial crisis, the botched war, and just...bad times. Americans have notoriously short memories, so they go off of feelings. Bill Clinton represents good feelings. Americans wave off the Lewinsky scandal and remember that those '90s were pretty dang good. They remember the '00s as not so good. And they're right—Bush sucked. He was so bad in so many ways it's ironically easy to forget why, because there's just so much it's hard to know where to begin. (As Clinton noted, his African aid policy is a shining exception.) 3) The Alzheimer's rumors are interesting. I hope it's not true, I wouldn't wish that awful disease on anyone.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "3) The Alzheimer's rumors are interesting. I hope it's not true, I wouldn't wish that awful disease on anyone." Personally, I think it's too convenient to explain him away with something like this, but the guys we know who are in a position to know, say it's true.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Sorry to hear about Bush's Alzheimer's if that is true. That's a crappy way to go. But the GOP barely mentioned him during the Convention. Did they trot out anyone from the Bush Administration to draw a contrast between how good things were under Bush to how good things are now?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The only prominent Bush admin. figure to speak was Rice. Conspicuously absent from her speech: the word "Iraq." But here's the scary thing. Romney has zero foreign policy experience. Same for Ryan. (Obama didn't have much, but at least some via his Senate committees.) That's not necessarily a disqualifier, but it does mean that they'd have to surround themselves with experienced foreign policy advisors. And they have. And they're the same Bush neocon geniuses who gave us Iraq. That's who'd be in charge of foreign policy if Romney is elected - especially since Romney himself is so spineless and easily malleable. We definitely do not want to go back there, quite apart from the economic policies we don't want to go back to either.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 My guess is that tonight they leave it to Biden to say things like that (a semi-snarky line along the lines of "the same neocon geniuses..." would sound better out of his mouth than Obama's. Ditto with harsher lines about the Bush economic record and comparisons to Romney. That allows Obama to stay loftier, and boom- classic good cop/bad cop. Normally the veep speaks Wed, but this back to back could be very effective.
Originally Posted By ecdc Number of times Bill Clinton mentioned George W. Bush: Three. Number of times Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, and Mitt Romney mentioned George W. Bush: zee-roh!
