G. W. Bush's secret speech in the Cayman Islands

[Sam.I.Am]

And Reagan.

But I think that a former president who continues to play a role in government is an admirable thing. Both Carter and Clinton (and Ms. Clinton) have continued to serve their country both as cheerleaders and as diplomats. Even G H W Bush has done this to some extent, especially in relief efforts. I don't even mind that Cheney has been vocal in his post-Veep career. That shows (to me) that you continue to care about yoru country and will wield whatever influence you have to move it in the correct way. Giving secret speeches to unidentified rich friends (who may not even be American) doesn't fall under this category. It shows an interest in cashing in. Sort of like how Reagan's first post-presidency act was to take $2 million for a speech to Japan.

Sitting Presidents don't count. The historical protocol is for ex-presidents to sit on the sidelines of post term presidential elections. Clinton endorsing and even campaigning for Gore was ok. Carter or Clinton doing anything more than endorsing Obama (really just a pro-forma thing because he was going to endorse the Democratic Party candidate no matter who it was) is not ok according to the protocol.

It's a symbolically visible (by being invisible) part of the whole returning to being a regular citizen and serving their country in the background thing that George Washington set and Thomas Jefferson cemented after their presidencies . Since then it's always been considered to be politically rude to do otherwise, just like it's always been considered politically rude for candidates to actively campaign (rallies and public speeches) during the other parties national convention.

That doesn't preclude ex-presidents from exerting political power from behind the scenes (many of them have from all parties) but they used to not go public with it. Carter broke that rule in 2007 and quickly apologized for it but it opened the door for Clinton to follow suit.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070521/21bushcarter.htm

 

[RandFan]

There's nothing about it on the conference website, but the FAQ does state that the conference sessions and dinners are for attendees only, and recording and photographs are forbidden. This is SOP for most conferences I've been to. I would think that this is also more likely when there's a speaker that requires a higher level of security than your average economist or motivational speaker.

They have every right to be secretive. But I think it reasonable to be distrusting of them. Just look at the 47% video. They don't want that kind of contempt for people disseminated. The great unwashed are to be controlled, not informed. As Mitt Romney said, policies that affect the lives of ordinary people are to be discussed by the rich and powerful in "quiet rooms".

"If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects." --Brandeis

I wouldn't trust anyone (Democrats included) who were afraid of their message going public.

 

[Tricky]

Nice attempt at Spin, NBC. Since the attendees paid upward of US $3,900 to attend the two day conference, why would they do so if they could simply wait for reporters to print the details? And how would the conference generate nefarious partners like KPMG, Deutsche Bank, and 20 other investment advisory firms if the information was simply given away the next day?

There is obviously something evil, like capitalism, going on here.

So now that it's over, there's no longer any reason to keep it secret, right? Or at least after a week or two. By that time, the people who went will have reported it. So it should be okay to release it.

No, sorry Jean, this doesn't wash. This is not to keep potential attendants from hearing. It's to keep everyone else from hearing, IMO. It seems very obvious.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

So now that it's over, there's no longer any reason to keep it secret, right? Or at least after a week or two. By that time, the people who went will have reported it. So it should be okay to release it.

No, sorry Jean, this doesn't wash. This is not to keep potential attendants from hearing. It's to keep everyone else from hearing, IMO. It seems very obvious.

I think that he was probably (as in highly likely) being critical of Obama. Like I said above it's considered bad form for ex-presidents to publicly criticize sitting presidents and their administrations. Doubly so this close to an election and in Bush's case it would probably help Obama no matter what he said.

Now you could argue that ex-presidents shouldn't be able to give any speeches public or private paid or not but that would butt up against their First Amendment rights.

It also seems that most of his speaking engagements are closed to the press so this doesn't appear to be out of the ordinary for him.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/20/george-w-bushs-15-million-speech-payday.html

The editorial in the link is slanted against Bush but even they acknowledge that Bush usually only does private events.

 

[eeyore1954]

Is there a waiter out there with a smartphone? Gosh I hope so, 'cause I'd sure like to hear what our former President had to say during a presentation in that offshore cash haven, the Cayman Islands. Yes, ol' Dubya, who, for obvious reasons, has been careful not to be seen or heard during the recent election is fine talking to a bunch of wealthy investors provided that no reporters are allowed and that there is a total blackout of anything said. I can't imagine why he isn't willing to go on record. Maybe it's because he wants to avoid another embarassing "47 percent" rant.

But I think it is interesting that our most recent ex-president participates in the election process in no way, but is perfectly willing to participate in a conference of rich people discussing how to protect their money from being fairly taxed in the US. Provided, of course, his remarks never see the light of day.

Come on, Secret Waiter. Do your thing to bring lying plutocrats into the open.

Certainly was bad timing for him to go to the Cayman's.

 

[JeanFromBNA]

They have every right to be secretive. But I think it reasonable to be distrusting of them. Just look at the 47% video. They don't want that kind of contempt for people disseminated. The great unwashed are to be controlled, not informed. As Mitt Romney said, policies that affect the lives of ordinary people are to be discussed by the rich and powerful in "quiet rooms".

"If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects." --Brandeis

I wouldn't trust anyone (Democrats included) who were afraid of their message going public.

So now that it's over, there's no longer any reason to keep it secret, right? Or at least after a week or two. By that time, the people who went will have reported it. So it should be okay to release it.

No, sorry Jean, this doesn't wash. This is not to keep potential attendants from hearing. It's to keep everyone else from hearing, IMO. It seems very obvious.

He was a keynote speaker for an hour after dinner. Have you been to conferences like this? The keynote speaker as a rule is pretty general in tone, although oriented to subject. Motivational. And hardly ever specific.

Bush has been keeping his head down for this entire election cycle. Why would he stick it up six days before the election? If he showed a video of his daughter's wedding for the entire hour, the press would create a story out of it, the same way that NBC is creating a story out of no story.

You've got as much right to go CT on this as they have to be secretive, so if you want to believe that the Bilderbergs were planning world domination and rubbing their hands together like Snidely Whiplash while they figure out how to use the 47%, go ahead.

The rest of the conference agenda was much more interesting. The proceedings will be available on their website in a week, I think.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

If you don't love off-shoring of assets, then you hate America.

 

[manofthesea]

Come on, Secret Waiter. Do your thing to bring lying plutocrats into the open.

heard muttering on his way to the podium..."Who in the hell put chewing gum on my chair? Why does my wine taste like dish soap?"

addressing the crowd..."I have been assured by trusted officials that our elections will be (cough) transparent. If any of them OSCE muslims try to tamper with our voting process they will be promptly dragged by horse and rider to the nearest jail. I would like to remind them that we have nukuler weapons."

"Let me be clear, I'll spell it out for you...S T R A T E G E R Y"

At that point the waiter had to remove himself and change back to his street clothes because he had peed himself.

 

[SezMe]

He was a keynote speaker for an hour after dinner. Have you been to conferences like this? The keynote speaker as a rule is pretty general in tone, although oriented to subject. Motivational. And hardly ever specific.

Agreed. So why be secretive?

Bush has been keeping his head down for this entire election cycle. Why would he stick it up six days before the election?

He has been politically silent. And this speech would surely be consistent with that style so, again, why keep it secret?

All this is from a political perspective. Maybe he planned to avoid politics all together but it is hard to see W speaking about ANY topic that doesn't have a significant political dimension.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Seems like he is, in a sense, telling the press to go screw themselves. Can you blame him?

Hum.... People here think it would be a good thing if W's privacy was violated. That is very interesting. A grand display of the ethics of Liberals.

 

[RandFan]

He was a keynote speaker for an hour after dinner. Have you been to conferences like this? The keynote speaker as a rule is pretty general in tone, although oriented to subject. Motivational. And hardly ever specific.

Bush has been keeping his head down for this entire election cycle. Why would he stick it up six days before the election? If he showed a video of his daughter's wedding for the entire hour, the press would create a story out of it, the same way that NBC is creating a story out of no story.

You've got as much right to go CT on this as they have to be secretive, so if you want to believe that the Bilderbergs were planning world domination and rubbing their hands together like Snidely Whiplash while they figure out how to use the 47%, go ahead.

The rest of the conference agenda was much more interesting. The proceedings will be available on their website in a week, I think.

That's all well and good but does not in anyway address the need for secrecy. In any event, Bush has little choice but to keep his head down.

 

[RandFan]

Seems like he is, in a sense, telling the press to go screw themselves. Can you blame him?

Yes I can actually. A person who lives with honor and decency certainly has no reason to fear the press.

Hum.... People here think it would be a good thing if W's privacy was violated. That is very interesting. A grand display of the ethics of Liberals.

No one has suggested that the govt invade Bush's privacy so that's flat out wrong.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Yes I can actually. A person who lives with honor and decency certainly has no reason to fear the press.

No one has suggested that the govt invade Bush's privacy so that's flat out wrong.

What world do you live in? Bush has retreated back into private life which is a time honored and decent tradition followed by most ex-presidents since George Washington.

As far as "Fearing the Press" goes if you consider valuing your privacy and trying to protect it as fearing the press then there are a whole lot of people out there that are flat out wrong, including myself (and I'm willing to bet that you fall in that category as well). There are a lot of good and decent people out there that refuse to get into politics mainly because of the press which is why we end up with so many mentally ill scallywags and power hungry egomaniacs running the country.

The press is (thankfully) not the government.

 

[RandFan]

What world do you live in?

The one where no GOP candidate actively sought Bush's enforcement. FTR: I voted for Bush twice. I passionately defended Bush here on this forum for years. What "world" do I live in? The real one. The one I've been fortunate enough to view from two sides.

As far as "Fearing the Press" goes if you consider valuing your privacy and trying to protect it as fearing the press then there are a whole lot of people out there that are flat out wrong, including myself (and I'm willing to bet that you fall in that category as well).

A.) My narcissism never moved me to a career that called for giving up my privacy. B.) Speaking to a group of people isn't a great way to protect one's privacy.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

But I think it is interesting that our most recent ex-president participates in the election process in no way, but is perfectly willing to participate in a conference of rich people discussing how to protect their money from being fairly taxed in the US. Provided, of course, his remarks never see the light of day.

This is beyond silly, so allow me to respond in kind.

I admire Dubya for trying to earn an honest living instead of following the example set by so many others of his social class and becoming one of the 47% who will vote for Obama no matter what.

I also believe in the marketplace. If serious investors believe Dubya's remarks are worth thousands of dollars of their hard-earned money, then that must be what they're worth.

I also believe in intellectual property. If what Dubya has to say is worth so much money, then it's in Dubya's interest to prevent the investment community's hoi polloi from acquiring that wisdom for free. How can Dubya continue to ply his trade if everyone already knows what he's going to say?

 

[RandFan]

I admire Dubya for trying to earn an honest living instead of following the example set by so many others of his social class and becoming one of the 47% who will vote for Obama no matter what.

People in Bush's "social class" vote for Obama? And you really are going to propagate that stupid meme that only irresponsible people would vote for Obama?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The one where no GOP candidate actively sought Bush's enforcement. FTR: I voted for Bush twice. I passionately defended Bush here on this forum for years. What "world" do I live in? The real one. The one I've been fortunate enough to view from two sides.

What does someone else seeking or not seeking an endorsement have to do with his post-term privacy or this speech?

A.) My narcissism never moved me to a career that called for giving up my privacy. B.) Speaking to a group of people isn't a great way to protect one's privacy.

Speaking to a group of people in private is by definition trying to protect ones privacy.

Again, the tradition of the office is to fade into the background after you leave unless called upon by the current president to do something such as diplomacy or charity work. That a couple of other ex-presidents have recently broken with this tradition does not automatically mean that any other one should do so as well. Personally I'm glad that we don't hear from Bush anymore.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I admire Dubya for trying to earn an honest living instead of following the example set by so many others of his social class and becoming one of the 47% who will vote for Obama no matter what.

People in Bush's "social class" vote for Obama? And you really are going to propagate that stupid meme that only irresponsible people would vote for Obama?

Not without your help.

 

[SezMe]

I also believe in the marketplace. If serious investors believe Dubya's remarks are worth thousands of dollars of their hard-earned money, then that must be what they're worth.

You've assumed that the attendees paid the big bucks to hear W. Maybe they paid to hear other, credible people so paid to attend in spite of not because of W.

 

[SezMe]

Hum.... People here think it would be a good thing if W's privacy was violated. That is very interesting. A grand display of the ethics of Liberals.

People here think nothing of the sort. The discussion is about why Bush did not voluntarily allow his remarks to be public. You do see the difference, don't you?

ETA: Beaten to the punch by RandFan.