Skip to comments.The Bushes: Back on the Media's Good Graces
Posted on 12/05/2018 3:06:18 PM PST by Kaslin
The death of former president George Herbert Walker Bush created a calm oasis of civil discourse, if only for a couple of minutes. It was appropriate to salute this man's kindness and statesmanship, even if you disagreed with him passionately, as many conservatives did.
And yet, it's a bit odd that pundits suddenly remember the kinder, gentler noblesse oblige of Bush's presidency. This from the same industry that mocked him during his vice presidential days as having put "his manhood in a blind trust," to quote the comic strip "Doonesbury."
As with former President Ronald Reagan, there is a vast difference between the warm memories of George H.W. Bush and the coverage of the man when he actually served in the White House.
Through President Bush's entire single term, the media routinely slammed him for beating Michael Dukakis with the "Willie Horton ad," even though the Bush campaign never made it. The media rarely acknowledged that Horton had stabbed a gas station attendant 19 times, and that when Dukakis, then the governor of Massachusetts, released Horton from prison on a weekend furlough, he raped a woman and stabbed her fiance in Maryland. But he was black; therefore, it was racist, and supposed racism is always a greater offense.
When David Duke ran for governor in Louisiana, then-ABC correspondent Judd Rose claimed it was an outgrowth of Bush: "You might say that David Duke is the son of Willie Horton," he said. "Duke is more overt, of course, but he's really just pushing the same buttons and sending the same coded messages that the Horton ads did so effectively for the Bush campaign last year."
Then-USA Today columnist Barbara Reynolds gave a prediction, saying, "It wouldn't surprise me if George Bush appointed David Duke, the former white sheet-wearing KKK wizard, as Republican National Committee chairman to implement the administration's white race-driven social policies." During the Los Angeles riots in 1992, then-Boston Globe editorial writer Randolph Ryan blamed Bush, the alleged race baiter, for the riots.
Then there was domestic policy. Only when Republican presidents defy conservatives are they commendable. In 1990, the media briefly offered great tributes to Bush for breaking his "Read my lips: No new taxes!" campaign promise and signing a big, fat tax increase. He was a statesman for upsetting Newt Gingrich and all those other fiscally challenged conservatives. Then 1992 rolled around, and after the tax hike, economic growth stalled and the deficit skyrocketed -- just as conservatives had predicted. The same journalists who hailed Bush's "courage" then blamed Bush for a recession, mocking him as out of touch for buying tube socks at JCPenney to try to sympathize with the working class he was apparently impoverishing.
The journalistic elites have not grasped that the willingness of the Bushes to take ritual beatings from the press made Donald Trump a much more attractive candidate in the eyes of the GOP base. The elder Bush only employed his "Annoy the Media, Re-Elect Bush" slogan in the desperate last days of his losing 1992 campaign. It did not resonate with the base. This should have been his opening gambit, not his closing one.
Bush had jump-started his 1988 campaign by firing back at then-CBS anchorman Dan Rather after he accused him of embarrassing America around the world with the Iran-contra scandal. Prodded by Roger Ailes, Bush asked Rather if he would like to be judged historically for having stomped off his newscast when U.S. Open tennis coverage ran long.
Conservatives hailed the sock-it-to-'em moment. Then it ended.
Standing firm and advocating against the media's relentlessly vicious partisanship -- and not bowing to their ridiculous claims of being unbiased -- should be the first requirement of any Republican politician on the national stage. It needs to be if he wants to get elected. Some really fine statements made about President Bush don't change that dynamic.
Media loves dead Republicans.
Rush nailed it: Phony praise.
They sure do. Especially if they’re not true.
Yup. Theyre no threat then to liberals.
The media is an embarrassment.
Back in the media’s good graces? They are useful to the media only because they oppose Trump and are no threat to Democrats. Somehow the term useful idiots comes to mind. Also can never forget that the Bush family became incredibly wealthy dealing with the 9/11 Saudis in the oil business. American policy even after 9/11 was a bit too compliant with the wishes of the 9/11 Saudis. Personally prefer the way Putin dealt with the Saudis. When the Saudis told the Russians that their support of Assad was troubling. As long as the Russians supported Assad the Saudis could not guarantee that there would be no terrorist attacks at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. Putin responded that he was glad to know the 9/11 Saudis had the power to prevent such attacks. He went on to station three nuclear submarines off the coasts of Saudi Arabia, made sure the 9/11 Saudis knew they were there and informed the 9/11 Saudis that if the Olympics were attacked, he would not invade Iraq. There were no terrorist actions at the 2014 Winter Olympics.
The Bushs have caused more devastation to,our Republic than both the Clintons and Obamas.
Way to put it.
It’s passive aggression. All of it. Suddenly the bushes are great because they are anti trump
It is nauseating
Where’s that eminent clergyman Jesse Jackson when you need him? (”Stay out da Bushes!!!)
He’s bedded down with some fourteen year old hooker.
I hear you!
I was stupified to find out that BOTH of my Republican parents voted straight Democrat in the last election.
Something they never would have done when they were alive!
I meant “Trump”. Stupid correct.
With the expiration of H.W. the Bush’s become useful once again to the propagandists of the left.
Jeffrey Tambor explains Bush, the New World Order and The Trilateral Commission on “Barney Miller” in 1981
Three Finger White Supremacist Gang Sign?
I’m waiting for someone to suggest that they put Bush’s Corpse into an SR-71 and send him to Paris.
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.