Posted on 01/29/2006 12:48:43 PM PST by notes2005
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush says Bill Clinton has become so close to his father that the Democratic former president is like a member of the family. Former President George Bush has worked with Clinton to raise money for victims of the Asian tsunami and the hurricane disaster along the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Asked about his father and Clinton, Bush quipped, "Yes, he and my new brother."
"That's a good relationship. It's a fun relationship to watch," Bush said in an interview with CBS News broadcast on Sunday.
While attending Pope John Paul's funeral, Bush said, "It was fun to see the interplay between dad and Clinton. One of these days, I'll be a member of the ex-president's club. ... I'll be looking for something to do."
He said ex-presidents share rare experiences that others cannot understand. "And so I can understand why ex-presidents are able to put aside old differences," he said.
Bush said he checked in with Clinton occasionally.
"And you know, he says things that makes it obvious -- that makes it obvious to me that we're kind of, you know, on the same wavelength about the job of the presidency. Makes sense, after all, there's this kind of commonality," he said.
Bush jokingly referred to speculation that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former president's wife, will seek the Democratic nomination for the presidency. He had earlier referred to the former first lady as "formidable."
"Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton," he said, referring to how Bill Clinton had followed his father, and Hillary Clinton could follow him.
Sorry. Sophmore=sophomore...
Or a "true conservative", apparently.
Look, you are way overreaching and certainly overdramatising the site itself, most all conservatives -- anywhere and also specifically here -- and certainly President Bush and his father and family, AND, rewriting by supposition most of what the rest of us have written in a "throw it in the air and let it fall back down all jumbled up" "restatement" process.
I think you need to get a lot off your chest and then maybe just try to read what people write and not apply an added layer of intrigue-bordering-on-paranoia to what is being opined and shared by others.
Just as a point here, do you KNOW for a fact that you and your family have never "entertained a rapist" in your home? Do you know, REALLY?
And, President Bush -- both of them -- including former President Clinton are not going to be doing ANY entertaining in any group setting with any proximity to one another or even partial of those without a GREAT DEAL OF SUPERVISION AND SECURITY. As to Clinton's bad character and seedy behaviors somehow "rubbing off on" (bad allusion there, sorry) on other Presidents and their families, I think that the Bush family -- the senior and current generation, at least -- are undoubtedly capable of being around all manner of characters and maintaining their principles.
You never know, perhaps Clinton's being helped with his bad character. It's a good thing to hope for.
But I hardly think that the Senior Bush isn't capable of maintaining his course without coming away dirty, so to speak, by fundraising with Bill Clinton.
I don't get from this article and the comments here that there's evidence of "two families consolidating power" in and for the U.S.
I do agree that the illegal alien problem has diminished good faith in the second Bush Administration, given the acceleration of problem since his term and the insulting "guest worker" plans (which I don't support and hope do not reach implementation).
No Administrations, however, have been known to fully represent the American people but I do hope that lobbying can become a diminished practice and soon (that will, hopefully) encourage a bit more accountability.
More of your issues...commenting...
Goldwater lost because of the nuclear bomb political ads the Democrats ran. It capitalized upon the national fear of World War III and people opted for "comfortable, homey" Johnson instead. McGovern lost not because he was an admitted leftist running as an admitted leftist but because he wasn't popular enough to win -- people just didn't trust him to respond capably if and when the time required firm and quick response.
I do believe, however, that there are more than a few percentages of voters who do, still, vote based upon commercial and cosmetic and media-presence as to "likability" of candidate. Some voters still just vote for who they think is "the nicest" or most easy to listen to, or, against the person who is most annoying or whose voice is offensive when compared with the other candidate.
There are a surprising number of voters who "just vote" and they follow the most appealing presence, when they do.
You're right, unfortunately in the views of many of us, as to the illegal alien problem, illegal immigration. The GOP needs to get smart about this and right quick.
They always say keep your enemies close.
The most unholy alliance since Carville and Matalin.
Fact. And they are no different than the emotional, hysterical, irrational left in that regard.
A famous man (at least in my eyes) once said: "It takes all kinds to make a world. That's why we're not all Chinese."
Grownups can agree to disagree. Grownups recognize that not everyone agrees 100 percent on all things. Grownups realize that politics means compromise, and that you can't have everything 100 percent your way, 100 percent of the time.
And grownups recognize that even folks who disagree politically have common ground - and are simply Americans, to boot.
Please consider national security. And the international situation. There's something to be gained in the appearances of being of one mind as a country and much to be gained by those who would harm us by the appearances of disorder and contradictions among President and former Presidents.
I do not excuse nor consider to be even remotely acceptable or excusable the behavior of Bill Clinton, from the look of things, throughout most of his life. But I CAN see how President Bush could be publicly courteous about him if only for the reason the man served as President of the U.S.A. It's worth a degree of respect, for that reason alone, and probably that's the degree of respect President Bush was describing.
About Hillary, I just think he was being smart, at least smarter than she is with her shrill nastiness about nearly anyone not in her control.
Well, I'm one of those "pure conservatives" and I work with a whole lot of different types of people -- some whose politics are abhorrent to me, as are their lifestyles and as is mine to them, given that I'm a Catholic, which is like holding garlic up before a vampire as to my faith and principles (and politics) held up before most liberals in my line of work -- and there are arch Democrats of the most ardent kind in my family, nearto and extended, just as there are other Republicans (a sibling is one of Bush's Rangers).
The thing about the GOP today is that there are many Libertarians associated with the GOP and they are otherwise liberals with fiscally conservative ideals. It makes for confusion when trying to share opinions publicly.
They always cut out Clinton when the commercials air in Houston.
Interestingly, our local furniture magnate "Mattress Mack" backs up Bush Senior in the commercials.
I guess he's more respected than Clinton hereabouts.
bingo.
I refuse to get upset about this because a lot of this is just being polite in public. Presidents can't be attacking their predecessors in the middle of a war. National unity is important.
I was still in the Navy when Bill Clinton was in office, and even though we disliked him when he was trying to allow gays to serve, he did do some good things for the military, seemed to really enjoy himself around military people, and stated that he was wrong to state that he "loathed" the military when he was younger. Let's face it, the military that took Baghdad in a few short days wasn't built overnight by GW Bush.
He is a much different person even today than he was in office, as his heart problems forced him to look at life just a little differently.
All that being said, Hillary is not Bill, she is much more to the left (maybe Bill only tolerates her too), and I wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances....
Thanks, and yes, agreed as to the rest you share.
Gotta agree, Pres. Bush 41 is the father that Clinton never had. I honestly think that BJ Clinton is so extremely jealous of Pres. Bush 43 (his character and integrity, the gracious and loving wife that he has) that he thinks he can glom onto that somehow with his relationship with Dad. I'd just watch my back if I were Bush 41, wouldn't want them to have a fallingout, he might end up like poor Vince Foster.
I agree that Bill Clinton should (have) been brought to justice for the allegations you describe. At this stage of his life, I wonder who, what, all that.
Meaning, I do believe he's been accurately evaluated and judged by the public for his bad deeds and for a person such as he is, who literally lives for public affection and affirmation as to his veracity -- such as it is -- the evaluation and judgement has been effective and meaningful.
He's a talented fundraiser for humanitarian causes internationally and I think, in that regard, Clinton's doing something good with the time and resources available to him. It does not excuse who he has been and shouldn't be trusted not to still be, but it's a start and it's serving a good purpose, to a great degree.
I would quite have enjoyed being a bird in the rafters at the recent World Economic Summit, however.
I agree that Clinton being taken in towe by former President Bush is despicable on a moral level. However, I also think that it is more a case of the Senior Bush, et al., keeping an eye on him while putting him to use on behalf of the country and world's needy (supposedly). As a person of faith, I consider that a useful thing.
Let's see...the Senior Bush is pretty old by now and President Clinton's on shaky longevity ground with his heart, so, let them be elder statesmen if that's what they want. As long as he's kept out of national politics (Clinton, Bill), I'm not as outraged as some AND I'm as conservative as can be found.
I think that most of the labels being doled out here on this thread, however, serve no purpose in this situation. Most of us can be a little bit shaky on one area in someone else's view and vice versa but there's no means to conclusively evaluate anyone based solely on public commenting, other than their general educational level and comprehension abilities.
Ah, but never forget whose peers and friends are those of 41. Certainly between them, 41 and 43 outnumber the security details of others, ha.
So now the Bush's are helping rescue the Clinton legacy.
And in the process sinking their own.
See #118.
RE: post #53
Just like the lib fools, the W haters never pass a opportunity to bash the President. Sometimes I see more hate and ignorance here on FR than DU.
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.