Posted on 06/15/2004 9:25:09 AM PDT by areafiftyone
President Bush certainly didn't score any points with his conservative base on Monday when he praised Bill Clinton to the hilt during the unveiling of the impeached president's White House portrait.
"President Bush was more laudatory and more passionate about Bill Clinton than he was about President Reagan [during Friday's memorial service]," contended nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage Monday night.
When Bush spoke about Reagan, said Savage, "we got empty homilies. We got less than empty homilies - we got a Mr. Rogers job."
But at the Clinton portrait ceremony, Savage said, "Today we actually got a passionate President Bush. He was almost animated to be around Bill Clinton. The guy looked happy."
Though the Bush-Clinton lovefest left many of the president's fans fuming, Mr. Clinton's obvious enjoyment of Bush's kind words also raised eyebrows inside Sen. John Kerry presidential campaign, which only 24-hours earlier had been assured that Clinton would come out swinging this week against the White House.
"Maybe [Bush and Clinton] have a mutual interest in a Democrat not winning this November," said MSNBC host Chris Matthews, noting that a Kerry loss would pave the way for Mrs. Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.
So you agree with the President that the Clintons were good parents?
Whats she got against marxists?
AV
Maybe he has some inside scoop that x42 is gonna die of some horrible sexually transmitted disease soon. (Well, I can hope, can't I?)
I was just waiting to see this FR. I don't think President Bush has any real love for the Clintons. But like it or not (and I still don't) Bill Clinton was elected as our 42nd President in 1992. He at least demands the respect the comes along with that office. Did he perjure himself before a federal grand jury? Yes. Did he demonize conservatives and the conservative agenda? Yes. Is he and former Atty. General Janet Reno responsible for the deaths of Branch Davidians at Waco? Yes. Anyhow the list goes on. However President Bush by contrast is a dignified man and rather than engage in the low brow antics of his opponets, who have said about the nastiest things about him imaginable, Bush has to show he is the better man. And that is what he did yesterday.
Correct. And when the Dems start bashing Bush again, Bush will look like the bigger man.
Another thing I disagree with....Savage kept saying Bush was not following through on his attacks on the Clinton era. I seem to remember that Bush really didn't say anything about the Clinton era during the campaign, other than he wanted to restore the dignity of the office. He took more shots at Gore than Clinton. I kept shaking my head at Savage, thinking he was making up his own history. Then he starts on this whole Emporers New Clothes. That might be a fine plotline for Shrek 3, but not a conservative talk show host.
I think this is just a case of the enemy of the enemy is my friend. Notice how all the coverage was focused on Bill Clinton, and to a lesser extent Chelsea. But the real reason for all this is Hillary, who is running in 2008. Bush would rather the have the airwaves filled with Clinton interviews until the Democrat Convention, rather than the anti war, Michael Moore, Halliburton garbage of the past 9 months. The Clinton's don't give a hoot about John F Kerry since they don't want him elected. They want Hillary elected in 2008 (and the GOP cupboards look bare for 2008 in case you havent noticed) and will play ball to get that done.
Clearly, Savage is off his meds as well. To say that Bush was more passionate about Clinton than Reagan is a complete fallacy.
I don't write the President's comments, nor would I presume to put words in his mouth. I have said however, that he could have been polite and gracious without saying the things he said. He is bright and his writers are talented so it's easy for them to be gracious without being disingenious.
The Clintons weren't good parents, or even adequate for that matter. They are moral scum. Bush knows it and so does every other decent American. It was an insult to everyone who knows that, and to defend it is reprehensible. It makes people even more cynical than they already are.
Sure, the Clintons probably are not good parents. However, I noticed he didn't say "Outstanding, excellent, top-notch parents" either.
I mean, Chelsea has obviously been fed, clothed, sheltered, no abuse that I know of, and probably on some level even loved by them, so I guess in a way one could say, with a straight face, that the Clintons were, in fact "good" parents.
Not outstanding, perfect parents, mind you, but "good".
I missed the speech. Is there a transcript posted?
Micheal Savage's real last name is "Weiner". I think this explains everything about him.
Someone posted something about Katrina Vanden Hoevel, a self-proclaimed socialist who lives and breathes hatred for Pres. Bush and this administration. Do NOT take seriously anything that woman says.
I did notice that for an extended period of time, Hillawitch was unable to look W in the eyes. Telling.
It appears some folks need to get a clue.
Some of them did. They have no class.
Read the spech. It was damning with faint praise.
"I thought the speech was loaded with double entendres...I was cracking up!"
He was just great. Nothing he said about Clinton was of any substance at all, yet no one could complain about it. They were shallow descriptions of a shallow man. Absolutely perfect.
I thought Bush sounded flat and dull, like he was just going through the motions, respectfully, EXACTLY how he should have been, sheesh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.