George W. Bush slammed other politicians during presidency, ex-speechwriter Matt Latimer writes

"Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say," the president said, "but I redefined the Republican Party."

Yeah, sure did.

Now look at it.

“This incident from the book, from Byron York at the conservative Washington Examiner, is far more troubling, since York thinks it is plausible

Probably deserves its own thread.”

The last 4 year of Bushie’s “presidency” WAS the REAL George W. Bush. The first 4 was a sham to fool us and get re-elected.

Well, at least he didn’t say anything bad about her, just that she was unknown.

Since we have no idea WHEN he is purported to have said these things, it would well be that, the first time someone mentioned Sarah Palin, he might well have joked about her being an unknown, and this might be how he would joke about it.

I wouldn’t be surprised if all of these “quotes” are in fact inaccurate recollections of things Bush actually said about people. Remember there wouldn’t be a recording, so the guy would be remembering what was said, and so the actual words might not be right, just the sentiments.

The sentiments are: Obama is clueless, Biden speaks but says nothing, Palin is unknown, and Hillary has a large behind and a drive for politics.

None of those things seems that controversal.

Since this is another of Bush’s speechwriters, it once again shows that Bush was REALLY BAD at judging the character of other people — he just had too good a heart, and believed in the best of everybody.

Because this speechwriter reveals his lack of character, and his lack of sense to, in his comment about “for no apparent reason” when wondering why Bush would say that Obama was clueless.

My guess is The quote is from after Bush had to give Obama some sort of briefing about something, and Bush had tried patiently, like a father might to a son, to explain to Obama why it was important to be strong in the world, and Obama dismissed him with the “I won, and we need to change direction”.

Thus, Bush would say Obama was clueless, the world was dangerous, and we were all screwed.

If he DID say that, we have no idea WHEN he said it, it could be the day she was picked to be VP, or maybe even before she was picked to be VP, in which case he might have just been saying he didn’t know who she was.

Don’t be too sensitive. It was a funny remark upon hearing about her. That’s different than what he may say today, now that she has national recognition.

Right on both counts so maybe I was a bit too harsh, my bad!

Governor Palin did have national recognition among insiders, hard to believe that W. would not have known what I knew about a female republican dynamo that was firmly in place as the most popular Governor in America already.

I would be surprised if a Governor Bush did not keep up with Governors, especially emerging Governor leaders of his own party as President.

IN looking at the 2nd-hand description of what Bush “said”, I don’t think it shows Bush didn’t know her — it sounds like he did know her, and had met her. He joked about her obscurity, but she was obscure except to those who are insiders.

Even here at FR, many of us (me personally included) didn’t know much about Palin when she was chosen, and had to scramble to learn about her.

On the other hand, Bush, being the leader of the free world in the midst of a financial crisis and still fighting a war both in Iraq and with the Democrats, may not have had the time to spend learning all about Palin before she had been picked.

And since she lived in Alaska, it was less likely he would have had much chance to meet with her, because of the logistics of travel. And she had only been Governor for 2 years, so she was still somewhat of a newcomer — we could hardly blame Bush for not knowing her as Mayor.

Anyway, his comments about the first 5 days of her introduction to America being critical seem spot on, given what actually happened.

Anyway, his comments about the first 5 days of her introduction to America being critical seem spot on, given what actually happened.

Bush was wrong if he actually ever said that and it appears that he didn't, regardless of you latching on to the claim and using it.

September 10, 2008
McCain's Image Improves - With Big Assist From Palin

She was not governor when he was a governor. As president why would she have appeared on his radar? She was a surprise to many republicans. Don't take style, philospohy and a couple of years of helping Alaska as being automatic for national recognition.

It's wrong to take an old quote and give it much current meaning.

I don’t claim that he said it; I claim that such a statement wouldn’t have been a stupid one to make, and wouldn’t have been an “attack”.

Was it 5 days, or 10 days? I don’t know the exact timeline; I guess since her speech was within a week of the announcement, her first 5 days actually looked pretty good externally.

But I believe that those 1st 5 days were critical in defining her to the public, and with her hidden until her speech, and with her not already having a national persona, the media and the left were able to plant the seed that germinated in the following few days, with the two interviews and the SNL skits, which planted an image of Palin in the minds of the general population that she was unable to overcome, and to a large degree has not overcome yet.

There were plenty of people here at FR who were upset at the time that McCain was not letting Palin get out and be herself, that she was being defined by others and not in a good way.

She was a good pick, she livened the campaign, she gave McCain a shot in the arm. I frankly believe that other candidates could have also helped McCain — McCain himself was deeply flawed, and any addition would have made his campaign more active than it was. But I was at the rally here in Fairfax with Palin — and my daughter, was with me, and wore her Palin shirt and palin buttons to school until the election.

I have no idea what you mean by “using it”. There is nothing to be “done”, nothing to “use”, it’s a discussion about what someone may or may not have said the day Palin was chosen, and whether that assessment had any merit or was an “attack”.

The thing I dislike most about some of the Palin supporters is their cult-like devotion, which makes it impossible to have a discussion about her without everybody getting all worked up.

At some point, it has to be OK to have a discussion of Palin without such reactions. Until then, the defensiveness suggests a weakness that I don’t believe is fair to Palin, who is clearly not weak, and clearly has no trouble with having the tough discussions and dealing with things forthrightly.

You aren’t saying anything, you want to use a made up statement and run with it, just like the left does because you like it, whether it is a lie or not.

Palin was out there over that Friday Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, so forget that phony charge also.

You being a long time romneybot I find it interesting that now you describe conservatives supporting our leading conservative candidate as “cult-like”.

It is funny how in some of the threads about Bush’s comments, BUsh is brutally attacked for making the statement, while in others people are attacked for commenting on the statement, claiming that the statement is made up.

I know some people just didn’t like Bush, but it bugs me that whenever some random former whitehouse employee writes a tell-all book, so many people here jump all over Bush for statements that book claims that he made.

At the same time, when those statements are miscategorized, I also am trying to point out that, even if the statements were correct, they should not be used to attack Bush.

But in a few cases like here, it has become difficult to discuss the alleged comments. Why? because they happen to be about Sarah Palin, and for a few people here, you can’t discuss Palin unless it’s to swoon.

That’s just the way it is, and that is what is “cult-like”. Just as there were posters who swooned over Romney, and launched personal attacks against detractors instead of discussing the issues.

OF course, in any discussion, there are some who don’t like to discuss the issues, and instead want to launch personal attacks, and use childish name-calling.

I suppose that “cult-like” could be construed in that fashion, so I apologize.

I do believe we will be better off when we can have a dispassionate discussion of Sarah Palin without a few supporters flying off the handle if something slightly less than admirable is said about her.

Frankly, I don’t see why even the most ardent Palin supporter would be upset at the statement that, at the time she was chosen, she was not a national figure, and was not prepared for what was coming.

Seeing as we were all shocked at what the media threw at her, it’s not really an “attack” on her to suggest she also had no idea what the media was going to do to her and her family.

The statement alleged to have been made by the President was that, since she had not been a national figure, their might well be an attack against her that she had not experienced as Governor of a smaller state.

And I think we can all agreee that what happened to her was certainly something she had not experienced before.

I suppose you will still find some way to object. But a person who believes that Palin was “out there” in the days after she was picked is not someone I can take seriously on the subject.

Random quotes from newspapers during that week:
“ST. PAUL, Minn. — Gov. Sarah Palin was nowhere to be seen at the Republican National Convention on Tuesday, but was clearly the star of the show.”

“She stayed out of sight, preparing for the biggest speech of her life tonight. Millions of eyes will be on her as she addresses the convention and accepts the Republican Party’s nomination for vice president. Since so few people outside of Alaska know much about Palin, talk of the convention is the anticipation of Palin’s speech.”

Or this:
“ST. PAUL, Minn. — The McCain campaign scrambled to take control of the public debate over vice-presidential pick Sarah Palin, canceling her public appearances and teaming her with high-powered Republican operatives as she prepared for a speech Wednesday night that will be her first, and perhaps most important, chance to define herself to the American public.”

“Although there has been extensive coverage of Gov. Palin in the four days since she was named, the campaign sees her speech as an opportunity for her to describe herself in her own terms. “

“Gov. Palin flew to Minnesota Sunday night with former presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. She made minimal small talk, sitting behind the prominent pair of former fellow Republican governors and opting to study her notes, read her BlackBerry and whisper with her staff.”

“In Minnesota she has stayed out of the public eye, a contrast with Democratic vice-presidential pick Sen. Joe Biden, who milled about the convention in Denver last week. Gov. Palin refused media interviews and canceled plans to appear at the Republican National Coalition for Life Tuesday.”

IN short, as the contemporary media reports show, Palin was NOT “out there”. She stayed out of the public eye, she cancelled plans to appear, she worked on her speech.

At the same time, she was being brutally attacked during those first few days, just as the alleged quote suggests would happen to her.

We all lived through that — we remember how outrageous the attacks were. I can’t fathom why anybody, especially a strong Palin supporter like you, would try to deny what happened now, just to attempt to score points against Bush, or Romney, or me, or whoever it is you feel you want to attack today....

When you can find an editor that will whittle that down some I will take a look at it.

I have told you before how tiresome your wordiness can get.

When I tried to say it in a few words, you complained that I “wasn’t saying anything”.

Palin essentially disappeared before her convention speech. I provided multiple quotes from contemporary news articles that verify that statement.

If you still insist she was “out there” during those 5 days, provide a quote from an article that says otherwise.

Palin did not disappear, she made a massive appearance on Friday in Ohio, on Saturday she appeared in Pennsylvania, Wednesday she made another massive appearance at her convention speech and you want to know what she was doing Sun,Mon and Tues, well that was probably a pretty busy weekend for her don’t you think, remember she did not come in fresh off her own campaign like a veep usually does.

I don’t know what she was doing for those three days before she gave the speech of her life, it is not an easy thing to find out. Your post claimed that she was not traveling on the Monday and Tuesday before that speech, big deal.

Palin was out there over that Friday Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, so forget that phony charge also.

don’t know what she was doing for those three days before she gave the speech of her life, it is not an easy thing to find out.

She was not "out there" Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday day, or you would know what she was doing.

The media attacked her Friday and Saturday, and as was stated in the articles I quoted, she cancelled an appearance, and then she next appeared publicly Wednesday night.

That could have been planned, or it could have been a response to the attacks. I never said WHY she wasn't "out there", just that she was not.

But you are correct, she did make appearances on Friday and Saturday. So you appear to have been 2/5ths correct, and I was 3/5th's correct. :-)

At the time, of course, we could all argue that the VP always dissappeared during the convention, to make the appearance more special. But it was also argued that McCain was unfairly muzzling her, and that by not answering the critics McCain was making it worse.

Me? I had no idea what the better way was to approach the problem. I figured she was doing what was normal for conventions, and her speech was great, and they couldn't keep dredging up stupid things because it would backfire.

But I never thought that those first 5 days weren't a rocky, terrible time for Palin.

She was not "out there" Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday day, or you would know what she was doing.

No I don't know that, that is some extremely obscure data, from pushing Romney to attacking Palin, you sure have different standards of what is negative.

To be after a two or even three day period from being chosen for veep on Friday and traveling and speaking on Saturday to giving the veep speech at the convention on Wednesday is getting pretty petty even if she did not giving any demanding appearances.

I’m not attacking Palin by saying she wasn’t out there.

In fact, you are attacking Palin. Because she decided not to be out there. And by denying the truth, you are saying that she was wrong to not be out there.

In order to maintain your deluded fiction that every person who supported Romney must hate Sarah, you weave a conspiracy that requires that night be day, and that actions that are recorded must be denied.

Sarah was brutally attacked after she was picked, because she was not yet a national figure, so she could be defined by the media.

For you to deny that now is absurd. For you to pretend she was “out there” on Sumday, Monday, and Tuesday when she was not is to accuse her of doing the wrong thing.

So when you say people attack her by simply stating what she did, you are saying that you think what she did was wrong. I don’t think it was wrong. I certainly don’t think she was wrong. I have no idea if politically it was the right or wrong approach, but I certainly don’t think she made a mistake.

Nor do I believe that Bush attacked her, even if he made statements similar to what was reported, which we don’t know. We know Bush knew who she was, and he certainly knew how bad the national spotlight could be, even for a person like himself who had been in that spotlight for years.

So if he expressed concern about how she was going to be treated in those first days, I believe he was right, she was treated horribly, it was a brutal time, and I won’t white-wash that brutality because you want to re-write history for some strange notion of perfection.

I don’t get you at all. I’ve said repeatedly in multiple threads today that Bush’s statements did not reflect poorly on Palin, and you’ve gone out of your way to attack that argument.

Denial helps nobody.