Posted on 12/03/2018 10:54:38 AM PST by conservative98
Good news. Be polite & get the heck out of there.
I think it is fine that President Trump will not be speaking. Especially since President Bush, the son, will be speaking. In fact, unless two Presidents are really close, it is kind of ridiculous for one to eulogize the other. The presence of the President and First Lady will show their respect for their predecessor. Look for the media to take every opportunity to politicize this, though.
Trump won’t have to be a hypocrite praising a former Rep President who said he was voting for Hillary over him. It is painful enough that Trump must sit among this nest of vipers. You can bet the four speakers will make pointed contrasts between Bush 41 and Trump who will not be named but the MSM will make the connections for them.
I am already suffering from Bush fatigue. He was the Forrest Gump of American politics as he manufactured a phony resume calculated to make him President. One year as UN Rep, one year as CIA chief, and one year as ambassador to China. Two terms as Congressman bracketed by failed Senate runs and a bid for President. Reagan made the mistake of having him as VP, which set him up for his 1988 successful run for the WH.
Bush 41 unraveled the Reagan legacy and cemented the corporate control over the GOP. Bush doubled the legal immigration cap to over a million a year ensuring that the Dems will be the permanent majority party. He missed major opportunities with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the Desert Storm victory.
Trump should be thankful he doesn’t have to speak.
Dunno. By today’s standards Bush was a decent man and President. No Reagan but no Dukakis either.
Further Factoid: Sitting presidents have invited winning sports teams to the White House for many years.
Two useless "traditions" that President Trump is thankfully doing away with. Now if he can return the "State of the Union" from a media circus to a simple submission of a statement to the Congress, he'd be hitting the trifecta in my book. Besides, who needs to see Pug-Ugly's face melting behind him and watching the camera showing Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg taking a nap?
Dukakis was never President. Bush 41 and 43 were lightweights who had history thrust upon them. They didn’t perform very well to the challenges and missed significant opportunities to secure our national interests in the long term. Their advisors were the puppeteers.
I wonder if Brian Mulroney still has those fantastic pipes?
“Reagan made the mistake of having him as VP, which set him up for his 1988 successful run for the WH.”
I think that Reagan was pressured into choosing Bush as VP in order to win the support of the GOP establishment in 1980.
It’s a shame that in 1984 Reagan didn’t put Paul Laxalt on the ticket- “First Friend” Laxalt had been the Governor of Nevada when Reagan was California Governor. We would have had a continuation of Reagan’s policies instead of Bushism.
I’m hoping GWB doesn’t use the service to make snide remarks about Trump. W. may be trying to impress his “good friend” Michelle Obama with a full barrel of Trump Hate.
In what way?
New normal. Call Trump childish. Act childish. Rationalize.
Trump should attend out of respect. IF AND ONLY IF, HE IS RESPECTED!
Trump and Bush had two different philosophies when it came to governing our nation.
Respect the office, and let the Bush clan claim it was more than it was.
Exactly.
Dukakis ran against G. H. W. Bush in 1988.
Inviting a sitting President to speak is a pretty recent phenomenon. It rarely happened in the past until about 30-40 years ago.
And link please to the article that says President Trump was not invited to speak because he was not liked. Please provide a NAMED source. Otherwise, it's just so much fake news.
Dukakis didn’t win because of Reagan’s coattails. From all accounts, Dukakis was a decent man. But that is not the criterion we use to elect a President.
Bush 41 revealed his true colors on his treatment of Trump. He supported the Clinton Crime Family over the nominee of his own party. Why? Because Trump had the temerity to defeat his well-funded son who was supposed to be the third Bush in the WH. Talk about hubris and arrogance. The Bushes and Clinton’s have dominated our Presidential politics for almost 30 years.
Bush 41 ran for President in 1980, served as VP for eight years followed by four years in the WH. Bill Clinton defeated Bush 41 in 1992 and served for eight years. He was followed by Bush 43 who served another eight years in the WH. In the interim Hillary served in the Senate waiting her turn for the WH. Hillary lost the nomination to Obama in 2008, but she burnished her resume serving four years as Secretary of State thru 2012. In 2016 Hillary was the anointed nominee despite facing a surprisingly tough challenge from Bernie in what was a rigged primary process, which gave Hillary a lock.
Jeb was supposed to be the lock as the challenger to Hillary, i.e., another Clinton versus Bush choice for the American people. Trump upset the apple cart by defeating “low energy” Jeb humiliating him and the Bush family in the process. Trump called our invasion of Iraq a mistake.
You can bet we will see Clinton and Bush involvement in 2020. To what degree is debatable, but both families have a sense of entitlement when it comes to running this country. Both have huge amounts of money from their corporate paymasters.
I don’t share your view of Bush 41. The son of Senator Prescott Bush, George H.W. Bush was rabidly politically ambitious who sought power at all costs. It had nothing to do with public service. Everything was calculated to achieving his political ambitions. Think of the ego involved. Who would even think it would be appropriate for a father and two his sons serve as Presidents. It is the stuff of Banana Republics. Or in the case of the Clintons, a husband and a wife taking turns as President.
We are a nation of 325 million. Surely, we can do better than having two families controlling the destiny of this Republic.
Maybe, but the other possibility is that Bush, a government guy, a deep state guy, would have voted for Hillary even if his son wasn't in the race for a while.
Jeb was supposed to be the lock as the challenger to Hillary, i.e., another Clinton versus Bush choice for the American people.
Very few people seriously thought that would happen. Cruz and Rubio had more support than Bush from the beginning.
The son of Senator Prescott Bush, George H.W. Bush was rabidly politically ambitious who sought power at all costs.
He was ambitious like everyone else in national politics. "Rabidly?" I don't see it. That's just the kind of pejorative language people use against those they don't like. Bush was less ambitious than the Clintons or the Kennedys or Nixon or Obama or Reagan.
Who would even think it would be appropriate for a father and two his sons serve as Presidents.
That's on us. We didn't have to vote for them. But we did.
I don’t need a link to know that no one in the Bush family invited the sitting President to speak.
Nor do we need a link to gather that if Obama was in office, he would be speaking.
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.