[Piranha]

What an ass. His failure to defend himself during his administration left the playing field for the left, and thu ran with it.

Not to engage in politics itself is a political decision, and his humility is actually disguised arrogance. By not defending his policies he is leaving the field to his opponents. This is justifiable only if he believes that the policy decisions he took are about George Bush the man, and unimportant to the future of the nation. If he believes that we are in the wrong path, then he is doing immense damage to our nation by remaining silent.

On another thread I read about Calvin Coolidge and how he was the last successful conservative Republican until Ronald Reagan. Well, okay, but if he abandoned his job after a single term and left the Presidency to big government progressive Herbert Hoover, who in turn was demonized by Franklin Roosevelt, then what did he accomplish by leading us into battle and abandoning his post?

Without George Bush’s refusal to defend policies that are good for the nation we got Barack Obama. Now Bush washes his hands of any responsibility for the takedown of our nation. Disgraceful.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Not to engage in politics itself is a political decision, and his humility is actually disguised arrogance

YOU ARE MY HERO today! I've been saying since about 2001 that this whole new tone and failure to respond was NOT humility, it is the opposite - ARROGANCE. And it is. You need to see post 7 also. WELL DONE.

[Steely Tom]

What an ass. His failure to defend himself during his administration left the playing field for the left, and thu ran with it.

Excellent analogy.

He left the field and pulled his team off the field.

Then, as the opposition proceeded to run up the score to 5000 to zero, he said nothing... apparently assuming that the people who were depending on him would understand that although he believed that he was too dignified to defend himself from the attacks of his mortal enemies, we could all rest assured that history would vindicate him.

I don't get that, and as far as I can tell that's one of the things that's left us in the terrible situation we're in.

That and his position on border control and security.

[rollo tomasi]

EVERY one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word.

You must know there are two ways of contesting, the one by the law, the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second. Therefore it is necessary for a prince to understand how to avail himself of the beast and the man.

This has been figuratively taught to princes by ancient writers, who describe how Achilles and many other princes of old were given to the Centaur Chiron to nurse, who brought them up in his discipline; which means solely that, as they had for a teacher one who was half beast and half man, so it is necessary for a prince to know how to make use of both natures, and that one without the other is not durable.

A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves. Those who rely simply on the lion do not understand what they are about. Therefore a wise lord cannot, nor ought he to, keep faith when such observance may be turned against him, and when the reasons that caused him to pledge it exist no longer.

If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them. Nor will there ever be wanting to a prince legitimate reasons to excuse this nonobservance. Of this endless modern examples could be given, showing how many treaties and engagements have been made void and of no effect through the faithlessness of princes; and he who has known best how to employ the fox has succeeded best.-- Written by a man who is unfairly criticized and interpreted.

[Theodore R.]

Mrs. Coolidge — her father Mr. Goodhue was a big Democrat — said Calvin did not run in 1928 because he expected a depression and did not want to be in office under the certain scorn that would result.

[itsahoot]

Without George Bush’s refusal to defend policies that are good for the nation we got Barack Obama.

Bush listened to TokyoRove and as a result we lost both houses, that is the GW that I despise. Hispandering did not work for him and it won't work for the GOPe.

[hcmama]

Not to engage in politics itself is a political decision, and his humility is actually disguised arrogance.

Thank you. Bush gets to go feel all smug and self-righteous about letting the left seize the agenda and leaving those that supported him deal with the aftermath.

Not another Bush. Not ever.

[x]

His failure to defend himself during his administration left the playing field for the left, and thu ran with it.

Not to engage in politics itself is a political decision, and his humility is actually disguised arrogance. By not defending his policies he is leaving the field to his opponents.

I'd agree with a lot of that. When Bush came along a lot of people didn't want someone so tirelessly self-promoting and ambitious as Clinton. They wanted somebody who didn't really want to wield power, who didn't really want the job.

But when you elect somebody like that it may be hard to rouse him to do what's necessary. If the president is so weary of defending himself, so inclined to go with the flow, he won't do a very good job.

Of course, you don't want someone who lives only to exercise power, somebody who wants power for power's sake, somebody who doesn't know how to subordinate personal ambition to more important goals, but you also want somebody who wants the job, somebody who is firmly committed to getting something done.

This is justifiable only if he believes that the policy decisions he took are about George Bush the man, and unimportant to the future of the nation. If he believes that we are in the wrong path, then he is doing immense damage to our nation by remaining silent.

Ex-presidents generally keep quiet about their successors. They recognize how hard the job is and don't want to interject themselves into partisan debate. So it was with Bush's father and with Reagan. I don't have a problem with that. A former president who throws himself into the partisan debate, as Carter or perhaps Truman did, looks petty.

There are enough other figures on the scene to make the same points, and if Bush did start campaigning, he'd probably "do immense damage" to the country by creating more support for Obama. He's that unpopular. Making current political debate about Bush is what Obama wants.

[The Shrew]

Without George Bush’s refusal to defend policies that are good for the nation we got Barack Obama. Now Bush washes his hands of any responsibility for the takedown of our nation. Disgraceful.

Worse than that, now he will campaign among the crony capitalists that put him in power to support his brother - than his nephew, than his daughter, ad infinitum...

TS