Posted on 03/10/2005 10:47:27 AM PST by West Coast Conservative
Bill Clinton enjoyed a round of golf yesterday with his old rival turned new buddy, the first President George Bush, in the odd couple's latest outing in front of the cameras.
Such a joint appearance would once have looked like a stuffy piece of presidential protocol. For years Mr Clinton was all but the devil incarnate to diehard Republicans after he upset Mr Bush's bid for re-election in 1992.
But the atmosphere of the old presidents' club and the pair's recruitment by the White House to be America's co-chief fund raisers for the victims of the Asian tsunami, has forged an intriguing bond.
Yes, they were mismatched, Mr Bush senior conceded recently. But despite their rivalry on the campaign trail, he went on, they had never been hostile.
In a rare public and even Clintonian display of sentiment from an essentially private man, he added: "Maybe I'm the father he never had". Mr Clinton's father died in a car accident a few months before the future president was born.
Mr Clinton too has been the model of courtesy, regularly deferring to his predecessor's extra 22 years of experience, even though, as a two-term president, he technically trumps Mr Bush.
To the bemusement of his enemies on the Right, on the government 757 jetting across Asia, Mr Clinton insisted on ceding the only bed to his elder travelling companion and sleeping on the floor.
"He was very considerate of the old guy. That's me," Mr Bush told the Houston Chronicle. "I mean, like the room on the plane. There was every reason in the world he should have had equal time if not priority, but he insisted. That's a tiny little thing that meant a lot to me."
Democrat and Republican, liberal womanising baby-boomer and old-fashioned, blue-blooded conservative, ostensibly the heads of America's two most powerful political families have little in common.
But their rapport has blossomed since they exchanged warm words at the opening of Mr Clinton's presidential library last November.
At the same time, in a sign that America is not as polarised as the recent election suggested, relations between Mr Clinton and George Bush the younger are positively cordial.
However, as Mr Clinton and the elder Bush headed off with Greg Norman to a Florida golf course yesterday to raise money for the tsunami victims, the first voices were heard suggesting that the love-in had risky repercussions for the Republicans.
Mr Clinton's wife, Hillary, a senator for New York, could be a powerful Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2008. As Mr Clinton undergoes an operation today, to remove scar tissue from last year's quadruple heart bypass, the Clinton family can be guaranteed yet more high profile and heart-warming coverage.
One member of the President's Club has been noticeably absent from these recent activities, hasn't he? And I'm not talking about Ford...
Bush 41 was never a "diehard" Republican. He looked tired and out of gas in 1992 when Clinton beat him. Who can forget the scene in the debate when he looked at his watch?
Don't forget, that his foreign policy "team" was almost unanimously opposed to W.'s incursion into Iraq.
Well, one could look at the Clintons like the thiefs on the cross - one was redeemable and realized at the end of his life that he needed Jesus, the other one scoffed and went on to hell...doesn't need explaining which Clinton fits which thief...
I'll confess to having similar thoughts. He might be fun to hit the links with and then down a few at the 19th hole. But, then again, reality sinks in. Knowing what we all know about they guy, it would be hard to accept being around someone who abuses women like he does, lies, uses people, etc. But he evidently manages to cover that over when dealing with people personally.
Maybe George H. W. Bush has just fallen under Clinton's spell, now that the pressure is off. GWB is safe in the WH for another term (assuming he doesn't pull a Nixon) and Bush Sr. is just trying to enjoy his sunset years. He's a good man and deserves a break. Paling around with Klink is probably harmless enough for him (if he doesn't do it too much).
Only time will answer that question.
Personally, I don't like him. But with the hildabeast, I hate her.
Perot played a major role, and I always believed he was operating on behalf of the Clintons, because he had some sort of vendetta against Bush. But there were other factors.
Clinton portrayed Bush as out of touch with the economy (it's the economy, stupid), although it was mostly lies and deception. (Surprise!) Also the Bush/Gore team had a much more dynamic look than the Bush/Quayle team, and you could sort of sense that fall we weren't going to win.
makes me shudder too!
Supposedly, in person he's overwhelmingly charming. Hands down the most accomplished flim flam man in history.
I have to admit the last two elections and their candidates make me feel warm and fuzzy about Clinton. But then again the comparison to Gore and Kerry would make Mao look good. As one freeper put it - If Bill Clinton was running against John Kerry I would not only vote for Clinton but campaign for him!
His whole life he's pretty much always been a northeastern Rockefeller Republican in most respects, and he clearly never really brought into the Reagan Revolution. He was fortunate to ride into office on the Great One's coattails, but it was pretty obvious that his heart was never really in the whole conservative movement. The one real accomplishment of his Presidency was the first Gulf War, and in retrospect he even managed to screw that one up.
Bingo! I was going to say the same thing. Bush the Elder has always been a most gracious and classy public figure, and this is further proof. Even when the dems stabbed him in the back after he compromised with them, he didn't trash them. And don't tell me the guy is soft, either. He is the same man shot down in combat over the Pacific and the man who led the ejection of Saddam's forces from Kuwait. If Snoopy had been elected, Saddam would still be there.
Had he lived in the 19th century he would have had a great career working the Mississippi riverboats...
No, she has to pick off a major Red State while holding *every* Blue State...
Keep in mind that Wisconsin and New Hampshire went Blue by less than 30,000 votes. Pennsylvania ended up being pretty close, too.
In the meantime, the Far Left is threatening to bolt to the Green Party or stay home, just as the Far Right did to the Reform Party in 1992 and 1996.
Also, keep in mind that for the first time in roughly a century, there are finally more registered Republican voters than registered Democrats.
So it is the Democrats that face the big risks; either by losing their Far Left "base" or by failing to sway moderate Republicans...Democrats can't just win by appealing to Democrats alone anymore; that equation has now changed.
Democrats can run to the Left to keep their base from bolting to the Green Party, or they can run to the Center to try to pick off moderate Republican and Independent voters...but both such options risk alienating either their own base or independents/moderates.
He didn't scam ALL of the people. Think he got about 43% of the vote? Never even 50% as I recall.
I don't believe anything Bush 41 or 43 has done or said constitutes approval of the Clintons. Hillary's new moderate stance will be revealed for the Halloween costume it is.
I haven't heard that in a while.
Remember also how they said the "tough New York press" was going to beat her up. Yeah, they did that, alright. Beat her up like a bunch of cream puffs.
I'm telling you people right now that Hillary! will be a dangerous opponent in '08. She's already sowing the "moderate" seeds, trying to remake her image to be softer and more palatable to the average sheeple. She won't fool anyone here, but we're a tiny minority. Couple Hillary!'s hardcore 'Rat base with a significant flood of arousal-gappers who will flock to her on the basis of gender identity alone, and you've got a potent combination.
All she has to do is pick off EITHER fla or oh.
Absolutely correct. The AARP and it's 'Rat allies are already hammering Bush and any other Republican in FL with this "privatizing" social security lie. In my state, OH, Bush actually fared worse in terms of total vote and percentage in 2004 against sKerry than he did in 2000 against Bore.
Republicans did good in the 2004 elections, no question about that. Bush won a clear majority of the popular vote and upped his electoral totals, and we did good in the Congressional races. But it was closely contested, and is still a closely divided country. A little swing here or there, as you note, and we could be on the outside looking in. A good reason to stay on Sentry Duty.
One of things that worries me about this is that Bush the elder comes out of that older "pushover" generation that seemed so ineffective against Liberals, even supported them in the interest of good feeling. Would'nt surprise me this had some ill effect on W's presidency (ie, elder Bush pressures W to lay off on some issue).
you called it just like I saw it (election or 92)
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.