Hmmmmm. Bush and Clinton.

clarsct

Illuminator
C
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
4,867
A thought has occured to me recently.

Bush and Clinton have been doing these disaster relief funds...Bravo, btw, but many remarks have been made about the relationship they have formed....even going so far as to say that H.W. Bush looks upon Clinton as a son.

So I got to thinking about this. Politically, the two were never allies. Morally, I think there's a pretty big difference. HW Bush sold his children and grandchildren's futures up the river for a momentary gain, whereas Clinton merely had a blow job in the oval office. Somehow I think HW would see the BJ as the greater evil, but I digress.

They're a generation apart, as well. Yet they seem to get along so well.

Could it be that their politics were never that far apart, and that they merely said and did what they needed to do to keep their constituents happy?
Could it be that, deep inside, they aren't that different a guy? That they're both shysters and salesmen?

Or am I just being cynical again?
 
senior-bush.jpg
clinton-cropped.jpg
bushbinoculars.jpg


One of these things is not like the other!
One of these things just doesn't belong!
Can you guess which thing is not like the other
Before I finish my song!
 
Is GWB's American flag photoshopped? It's facing the wrong direction.
That would be so lame.
 
I am reminded of a book I read years ago ("Plain Speaking" was the title??) which was mostly a set of interviews done with Harry Truman on his life.

One of the things discussed was his employing Herbert Hoover, who is best remembered as the President when the Great Depression began and whose lost to Roosevelt began the 20 years of Democratic presidents, as a consultant on rebuilding Europe after WWII. Hoover had first come to national attention in doing much the same type of relief work after WWI and Truman wanted to use that expertise.

The interviewer (for the life of me I cannot remember his name right now) asked if they ever discussed politics. Truman said no, they would have always disagreed on that, but that they could and did discuss the unique thing they shared--being the President of the United States.

So it may be that Bush elder and Clinton do have things besides politics they can discuss and enjoy discussing. One can but speculate.
 
I think Bush Sr. is trying to get in good image-wise by hanging around with a President who didn't screw up the country to the point of it falling apart. Because you know, as we all will, that is Clinton's legacy: a comparison to the failure of our current one.

Plus I like bringing it up because I'm bitter. ;)
 
Zbu said:
I think Bush Sr. is trying to get in good image-wise by hanging around with a President who didn't screw up the country to the point of it falling apart. Because you know, as we all will, that is Clinton's legacy: a comparison to the failure of our current one.

Plus I like bringing it up because I'm bitter. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm bitter too, not because of low expectations being confirmed but because of slighter higher expectations of Clinton being disappointed. In the end, as you say, his legacy is one of not screwing anything up. "Didn't do much, didn't get any of it terribly wrong." Some end-of-term report, dude.
 
CapelDodger said:
I'm bitter too, not because of low expectations being confirmed but because of slighter higher expectations of Clinton being disappointed. In the end, as you say, his legacy is one of not screwing anything up. "Didn't do much, didn't get any of it terribly wrong." Some end-of-term report, dude.
Click to expand...

I'm wishing for a caretaker president. I never understood why those get such a bad rap. Isn't the job supposed to be caretaking? It's the ones who decide to make great sweeping changes that foul things up.
 
Hutch said:
The interviewer (for the life of me I cannot remember his name right now) asked if they ever discussed politics. Truman said no, they would have always disagreed on that, but that they could and did discuss the unique thing they shared--being the President of the United States.
Click to expand...
That has to be something, doesn't it? Being there, in the Oval Office. Knowing that at any moment an aide could come through the door with news and what you do in the next 12 hours will be discussed in Military History Magazine 30 years down the line. Or 130. As a common experience, it's very uncommon.

Clinton and Bush Major also have their high-functioning intellects in common. Ditto Carter. Bush Minor ... I don't think so.
 
CapelDodger said:
That has to be something, doesn't it? Being there, in the Oval Office. Knowing that at any moment an aide could come through the door with news and what you do in the next 12 hours will be discussed in Military History Magazine 30 years down the line. Or 130. As a common experience, it's very uncommon.

Clinton and Bush Major also have their high-functioning intellects in common. Ditto Carter. Bush Minor ... I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Movie stars hang out with movie stars, ditto rock stars and rich folks. It is a tribal clumping. Bush and Clinton simply belong to a very very small tribe.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I'm wishing for a caretaker president. I never understood why those get such a bad rap. Isn't the job supposed to be caretaking? It's the ones who decide to make great sweeping changes that foul things up.
Click to expand...
It has been said, and has merit, that the constraints on Clinton - from the VRWC and Congress - made for his success (defined as "not failing spectactularly"). A certain amount of inertia is a good thing in a society.

I think it was Coolidge who said "If you see ten problems coming down the road, nine will fall in the ditch before they get to you", or similar. That might be tending towards rather too much inertia, but all the same there's good sense in there.
 
Ed said:
Movie stars hang out with movie stars, ditto rock stars and rich folks. It is a tribal clumping. Bush and Clinton simply belong to a very very small tribe.
Click to expand...
Do you mean ex-Presidents with high-functioning intellects? That's a small dinner-party at any particular time, but over the 40-odd Presidents there are a fair number. The current one will not get onto that Hall of Fame.
 
CapelDodger said:
Do you mean ex-Presidents with high-functioning intellects? That's a small dinner-party at any particular time, but over the 40-odd Presidents there are a fair number. The current one will not get onto that Hall of Fame.
Click to expand...
Never met the man so I can't really comment. Seemingly an awful lot of people have though. I sort of feel left out.
 
History will not be kind to Dubya. Well, maybe after the beating it'll give him a sundae, but it will shove his face into it. I only hope it fares better for us.
 
Zbu said:
History will not be kind to Dubya. Well, maybe after the beating it'll give him a sundae, but it will shove his face into it. I only hope it fares better for us.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I now have a mental image of the Muse Clio beating up George Bush with an ice cream scoop.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Well, when you consider that Coolidge's tenth problem was the Depression....
Click to expand...
He was gone by then. Went into banking (as an ex-Presidential figure not an executive, obviously).

His judgment is unreliable given the gale-force boom during his tenure. Some problems are blown away, others are tenacious and just keep on trudgin'. When the wind drops they all hit your doorstep in close order.

Even if Coolidge, or his people, wanted to turn down the boom they couldn't have done it. Gumment was to small, and anyway booms can't be turned down, they can only be ended. And no blame will be attached to the boomers - all blame will be applied to the one small voice that said "The Emperor has No Clothes!". At least in the short-term, the term in which your kids are getting spat on in school.

Hoover stuck his head in a vice without realising it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom