[livius]

Very good points, cyber. I didn’t realize Laura was involved in getting him to pull back. The odd thing was that every time he did something like the “bring it on” comments, the only people upset were the press and some Boston and Berkeley fruitcakes. Everybody else loved it!

He may not have been a great communicator, but whisking him off the stage altogether, IMHO, was a serious mistake. He’s been virtually invisible for about the last two years. Maybe he himself got sick of it and couldn’t take the attacks anymore; maybe somebody else influenced him. I don’t know, but it’s unfortunate that he didn’t just go on being Bush (he’s great in person, btw) and tell the media to stuff it.

[CyberAnt]

I actually heard Bush say that “his wife” didn’t like him saying that.

However .. people didn’t realize that Laura was a LIBERAL and pro-choice. I’m sure she was not happy about his “bully” statements. And .. you’re right .. the rest of the country LOVED IT. I think Laura was intimidated by the media’s portrayal of her husband.

BUT .. WE DIDN’T ELECT HER - WE ELECTED HIM BECAUSE WE BELIEVED HE WAS TOUGH!! And .. he is when his wife lets him.

[prairiebreeze]

As for the "dead or alive" sort of comments and Laura's involvement, I'll cut them both some slack. Bush was mostly newly elected after the debacle of 2000, couldn't get cabinet seats confirmed and was untried on the international stage. I can understand the thinking he shouldn't be seen as reckless, although I agree the majority of Americans didn't take those comments badly, except for the press/Bostonians/Berkley-ites.

I'll ALWAYS remember how GW almost single-handedly held this country together after 9-11. And Laura was rightly titled Comforter In Chief. Those legacies will follow both of them I believe, and rightfully so.

and tell the media to stuff it.

That should've been and should now be the consistent response of republicans. I believe most of the country would stand and applaud. Alas, we get silence or cow-towing.