George H. W. Bush is laid to rest…
…and “was celebrated with high praise and loving humor.” It’s no surprise that his former enemies on the left are saying nice things about him now, because as Michael Goodwin points out, the only good Republican is a dead one, especially if he was against Trump in life, and in death can be used as a cudgel with which to beat Trump.
We saw it with McCain and now with Bush the Elder. But even before Trump, we saw it with Reagan, who was in some sense the Trump of his time and who the MSM excoriated while alive but loved when dead. What’s more, his death occurred during the Bush II era, and therefore could be used as a cudgel which which to beat Bush the Younger.
Yes, they have become tediously predictable.
(But no less disgusting for that….)
Some of the best speeches I have ever heard.
I watched the ‘Pomp & Circumstance’ trip from the capitol to the cathedral and then the entire two hours of a real nice send off for George H. W. Bush this morning. To my surprise it was well done, lots of Christian High Church Funeral with excellent eulogies and a bit of loving humor. It appeared to me that all the big politicals did a decent job of showing up and showing respect, at least as much as they are capable of showing considering who they are. Respect the office even if you can’t respect the individual.
Clintons showed the class they lack…didn’t acknowledge President & Mrs Trump at all.
I will always have a bone in my craw re GHWB for throwing away his shot at a second term & giving the White House to those grifters.
I especially appreciated this bit of irony in the Goodwin piece:
“McCain’s feud went beyond the grave, when it became known that he did not want Trump at his funeral. McCain got extra love for that final bit of pettiness.
“Paradoxically, Bush gets extra credit because he wanted Trump at his funeral, even though both gestures are seen as a rebuke to the current president. In this case, Bush is hailed for rising above pettiness.”
I will always have a bone in my craw re GHWB for throwing away his shot at a second term & giving the White House to those grifters.
Bush was a weak president. I still recall, Maggie Thatcher saying “Don’t go wobbly, George.”
It is my theory that Democrats, especially Rostenkowski, made Bush promise a tax increase in return for their support for the Gulf War. We know that Gore specifically sold his vote for the war. Bush did not have the guts to force them to vote.
The media savaged Bush over the recession, which was over before the election. The supermarket scanner caper was only one example. His one gutsy move as president was the Dan Rather confrontation.
Diplomad 2.0 has one example of graceless behavior by the Bush entourage.
When Bush won the presidency in the 1988 elections against the absurd and execrable Michael Dukakis, his people wasted no time in flushing most of the Reagan staff out of the government. In fact, a little Diplomad aside, I was called by an outraged and tearful Maureen, who had been unceremoniously thrown out of her office at the RNC within a few days of Bush’s inauguration. She had been the Co-Chair of the party and went to her office only to find locks changed and her stuff in the hallway.
Bush was surrounded by greedy Deep Staters,
I found many things to fault in 41 and 43, but I found them to be likeable people. 41 was truly a war hero. And 73 years of marriage is also a remarkable feat. RIP
Cornhead,
I agree about the speeches.
MikeK,
Thatcher said that, but if you don’t know the context, it doesn’t say anything about Bush in general. You must remember that Bush is the one who stood up to both Thatcher and Chirac over German reunification. Prince Charles, Angela Merkel, and Lech Walesa were at the funeral.
I am also sick of reading criticisms of Bush for creating a new world order. If the cold war and its threat of a nuclear holocaust ended, something had to follow to prevent utter chaos. Bush tried to give countries a chance to rebuild themselves. Far too many people criticize others on the basis of a soundbite, but they have minimal understanding of what was going on at the time.
Bush tried to give countries a chance to rebuild themselves. Far too many people criticize others on the basis of a soundbite, but they have minimal understanding of what was going on at the time.
I remember him trying to prevent Ukraine from leaving. It is interesting that Gorbachev gives Bush the credit for the USSR breakup, and not Reagan,.
To my surprise it was well done,
The Episcopal Church has one and only one advantage: they respect the ceremony. Every week. The Hallmark Channel sensibility which has ruined Catholic worship outside the Eastern rites finds no analogue in the Anglican world. (You just get useless sermons and the occasional priest-pest who insists on calling the Eucharist ‘a meal’).
Bush was surrounded by greedy Deep Staters,
That was a rude way to dispose of Maureen Reagan. Mr. Amselem worked with her at the United Nations and found her satisfactory in that venue (inneresting: she had no tertiary schooling and the only employment she admitted to was fitful work as a television actress; the finances of three of the four Reagan kids were opaque). Time magazine in 1989 ran a squib on her consisting of dirt supposedly fed them by an unnamed Bush Administration official. The officials assessment, “She is the ashtray throwing type…against everything George Bush stands for”. Bush had no obligation to employ his predecessor’s daughter, but she did merit at least a baseline of courtesy. My wager is that a junior staffer working for Mary Matalin was responsible for the unpleasantness. Matalin is awful.
Sorry to have to say this on this day, but the comments of John Guilfoyle and Mike K are exceptionally petty and border on the despicable
John Guilfoyle, if you listened to Senator Allen Simpson explain the circumstances, you should understand that G.H.W. Bush put the needs of the country ahead of his political career by joining what was supposed to be a bipartisan effort to fix the S.S. mess, among other things. Unfortunately, the dishonest Democrats stabbed him in the back on an agreement they had made; and the GOP abandoned him. Simpson specifically quoted him saying that he knew he was going to take a big political hit; but, made the decision that he thought was necessary.
Mike K, you obviously did not pay attention to what was said about his Presidency and extraordinary leadership during a time of potentially cataclysmic change in the world by people such as Brit Hume. Brit, whose opinion I obviously value above yours, opined that he hoped that this review of “41’s” Presidency will serve as a history lesson for the young and ignorant. You would clearly fail a test on the subject. Your reprise of that Thatcher quote–without context– is as simple minded as those who try to define an exceptional man by the campaign rhetoric, “read my lips”. (BTW, Thatcher was a fine leader of her country, but she was also a hard core, sharp elbowed politician. By making her comment public she demonstrated that she did not rise to President Bush’s standards when it came to class.)
Many of us mourn a man who exemplifies all that we wish we could be, and one that we hope that our sons and grandsons might emulate.
A Naval aviator defends the honor of President Bush 41′ by dropping napalm on other commenters, sorry to see it here.
Brit, whose opinion I obviously value above yours,
Obviously. I have not insulted you.
Those who disagree only turn to ad hominem when they are losing the argument.
I really hate arguments in comments and I left Althouse when it became too hostile.
Oldflyer…what’s the line from Animal House? “You f—ed up. You trusted us.”
GHWB knew he was in bed with snakes & then we’re supposed to feel bad he got bit?
I honour his military service to the USA, just as I honour yours.
But he should never have been POTUS, just like his son.
And I especially resent the hagiography from the left when he was vilified while he was still breathing & putting legacy sons up for the job.
But I bear you no malice.
I was busy all day and unable to look at comments till now, but I request that people refrain from personal attacks in comments.
I know that none of you usually argue that way, so I’ll just add that I’d like you to keep to your usual restraint in that regard.
The hypocrisy runs deep among the progressives who are lauding President G.H.W. Bush when they smeared him at every turn when he was our leader. But that’s not my gripe. My question is, Is it really necessary to have such grandiose funerals for our political leaders? How many millions did this one cost? Yes, a grand send off for a former President is a nice gesture, but when the entire nation is put on hold for a day of mourning and the government spends millions on a protracted funeral ceremony, which resembles in many ways the death of a royal monarch, it seems kind of, well, undemocratic. To me the worst part of it is that there has been an escalation of pomp and circumstance with succeeding Presidents funerals. When Bubba dies are we going to have to have a week of mourning? How many places will his body lie in state before it is interred? How many eulogies will be necessary to give him a proper send off? It appears to me that Congress ought to set some limits on what the taxpayers will be on the hook for.
Yes, I’m a cheap b*st*rd.
J.J.,
I sort of agree with you, but then again yesterday’s eulogies are probably the only history lesson much of the population (at least under 50 years) has ever had.
Then, there is this: H. W. made a lot of mistakes and I voted for Billy (saxophone) Clinton because I was ready for a new face. Living in Dallas I knew Ross would be a disaster and I was ready for a change. Having said that I am a high church person and I appreciated the time taken out by all the Washington folk to say good bye to Bush 41. Washington getting dressed up and sitting still for a few hours with dignity to honor a past president with a lot of history was just fine with me.
As far as the rest of the presidents, past and present, I suppose Jimmy will be next and we then can see how the rest of the group age on out and enjoy the history lessons each time we put them under. I seem to be a bit older than the others after Carter is gone.
I found the whole thing to be quite moving.
We Americans need to honor our country, our flag and our President regardless of party.
Unfortunately, tomorrow we will go back to business as usual.
Tuvea, I agree, and yesterday came pretty close. I wish the respect was more frequent.
Simpson’s speech hit the right notes for the man he was eulogizing I thought.
I read that President Trump said yes to every request from the Bush family, as he should. Mrs. Trump invited the family to the WH to see old friends on the staff and have a tour of the Christmas decorations. Those gestures aren’t given publicity by the MSM and they should have been.
Should, God forbid, Trump keel over dead from eating too many BigMacs then perhaps finally the MSM will have something nice to say because he have achieved the ideal state for any good Republican.
Art Deco, I regret to say that many Episcopal churches no longer respect the ceremony, including, from what I read, the National Cathedral. For this state funeral, they did rise to the occasion, although I was put off by the 1979 prayer book language, “I am resurrection and I am life,” not “I am the Resurrection and I am the Life.”
I don’t know how many of the other former presidents will want all the pomp and circumstance. G.W. Bush, maybe. On the subject of inviting Trump, unlike McCain’s spite, on a state occasion, having the sitting president there is entirely proper. And to add a bit of spite of my own, it was worth it to see Hillary’s stone face and rudeness. She won’t be president, and whatever Bill decides about his funeral, she won’t have a state funeral like this one for herself.
As presidents go, neither Bush 41 nor Bush 43 was perfect. They both served with a deep love for the country and a deep respect for the office they held.
I am amused by folks who choose to disparage a worthy man (I consider him a great one) on the day of his funeral, then take umbrage when when someone calls them out on it.
I didn’t day he was not a worthy man. He just wasn’t a very good president. I voted for him in 1992 but had Perot not had his meltdown, I would have voted for him. 25% of voters did anyway. Rush Limbaugh had a long segment today about it and about Pat Buchanan’s 1992 speed, which I remember quite well.
He just wasn’t a very good president.
And who since Eisenhower’s retirement, has been?
Recall Peter Drucker: “If a job has defeated two or three men in succession, the job is undoable and should be abolished”.
Reagan’s accomplishments were largely in realms where presidential discretion reigns. Once you have to have the co-operation of Congress, lallapaloozas of rent-seeking and patronage are a more likely result. The federal judiciary is another scandal.
As I listened to the accolades and anecdotes about George H. W. Bush, I couldn’t help but wonder which ex-president would be next and what could be said about their lives, accomplishments and values.
Reagan had a Democrat Congress, albeit one that let him win the Cold War as long as he let them spend.
Hastert confirmed your opinion of Congress. Of course, he was a member of the “Combine” in Illinois so he was dirty before he was Speaker.
So, Bush 41 was a weak President in the opinion of some commentators. I presume from comments from some of the same that they considered Reagan a “strong” President. Or maybe I am off base again.
I liked Reagan, and supported him with my vote on two occasions. On the other hand, I think I look back with clear eye. So, considering the poor evaluations of G.H.W. Bush put forth on this forum, let’s review a little of the Reagan legacy that is sort of forgotten.
Reagan claimed to have “solved” the illegal immigration problem by granting amnesty to millions of illegals. It is evident that he solved nothing.
When Reagan sent the USMC to Lebanon with no mission other than to be there, and hundreds were slaughtered in their static bivouacs, Reagan did nothing. Oh, wait. He responded by invading Grenada.
The U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed on Reagan’s watch. The USN was directed to conduct a retaliatory bombing raid with no defined targets and no time to prepare. (Some bombers did not even have time to up load a full ordinance package; and the Admiral on the scene tried to have the raid delayed until it could be properly planned and executed. It was a political farce. I know this.)
Reagan recognized Sadaam Hussein as the legitimate President of Iraq, and actively supported him in the Iraqi/Iranian war. It is widely accepted that Sadaam used chemical weapons with abandon in that conflict without repercussions. Does anyone wonder why Sadaam Hussein thought that he could invade Kuwait, and threaten Saudi Arabia with impunity?
During Reagan’s eight years in office, the national debt increased by 186%. (For the math challenged, that is an average of 23.35% per year) Anybody wonder why after eight years of “Reaganomics”, Bush had to risk his political career to address SS, along with other critical issues?
Reagan, to his credit, did bring the failing Soviet Union to its knees, as they finally bankrupted themselves in an attempt to keep pace with his spending.
These are elements of the Reagan legacy that come to mind without any real research. But, he was a “strong” President, and Bush was a weak one? Memories can be convenient things.
expat: “I sort of agree with you, but then again yesterday’s eulogies are probably the only history lesson much of the population (at least under 50 years) has ever had.”
True, unfortunately.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/12/06/a-41-farewell-not-to-grace-but-to-a-framework-of-familiar-order-and-beauty/
J. E. Dyer looks beyond the moment and the eulogies to the bigger picture.
Art Deco on December 6, 2018 at 4:45 pm at 4:45 pm said:
He just wasn’t a very good president.
And who since Eisenhower’s retirement, has been?
Recall Peter Drucker: “If a job has defeated two or three men in succession, the job is undoable and should be abolished”.
* * *
Hard to abolish the top executive under the Constitution.
The problem, IMO, is that we are asking the President to do too many things that aren’t part of his job description in the first place.
Drucker is one of the wisest men ever to study how businesses do, and should, operate. Sometimes, that doesn’t look like a very high bar.
Wikipedia:
Among Drucker’s early influences was the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, a friend of his father’s, who impressed upon Drucker the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship.[22]
Drucker was also influenced, in a much different way, by John Maynard Keynes, whom he heard lecture in 1934 in Cambridge.[23] “I suddenly realized that Keynes and all the brilliant economic students in the room were interested in the behavior of commodities,” Drucker wrote, “while I was interested in the behavior of people.”[24]
Over the next 70 years, Drucker’s writings would be marked by a focus on relationships among human beings, as opposed to the crunching of numbers. His books were filled with lessons on how organizations can bring out the best in people, and how workers can find a sense of community and dignity in a modern society organized around large institutions.[3]
As a business consultant, Drucker disliked the term “guru,” though it was often applied to him; “I have been saying for many years,” Drucker once remarked, “that we are using the word ‘guru’ only because ‘charlatan’ is too long to fit into a headline.”[25]
Oldflyer on December 6, 2018 at 11:27 pm at 11:27 pm said:
…
I liked Reagan, and supported him with my vote on two occasions. On the other hand, I think I look back with clear eye. So, considering the poor evaluations of G.H.W. Bush put forth on this forum, let’s review a little of the Reagan legacy that is sort of forgotten.
* * *
Some of those I remember, some not, but I wonder: was concentrating on defeating the Soviet Union the cause of some of his “errors” (not everyone considers them to be so*), and was it enough to make up for all the rest?
*I wonder also if he wasn’t getting his advice on those issues from subordinates who weren’t totally in agreement with his aims; I don’t remember the history enough to guess, but if he had the same situation as Trump — which he did in some ways, especially the disdain of the Establishment — well, with friends like those, who needs enemies?
“When Bubba dies are we going to have a week of mourning?”
When Obama dies there will be people attempting to start a new religion, or perhaps merely continue the one they have already started. I’ll just say that in the spirit of Thumper I will have nothing to say when Obama dies. Or Carter.
Another opinion (not Brit Hume) on GHW Bush and his legacy.
The last thing Bush wanted, or could handle, was the sudden collapse of the postwar bipolar world. His disgraceful “New World Order” speech came on March 6, 1991, even before the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the end of the Soviet Union. With its chilling echoes of Hitler’s “New World Order” speech of 1941—which White House functionary approved that phraseology?—it made clear where Bush’s sympathies lay.
With order.
This temperamental lassitude was precisely what was frightening my friends. Here the end point of America’s postwar foreign policy had been reached—the end of the Soviet Union was a foregone conclusion now—and instead of welcoming this development, Bush reclined back into the world of the Helsinki Final Act of 1975—which, when you stop to think about it, was the only world he knew, or in which he was comfortable.
It’s an interesting POV and I agree with it. No mention, though, of the mishandling of Yeltsin.
Hard to abolish the top executive under the Constitution.
True, but it’s less difficult to reconfigure the executive branch and legislative and executive functions to provide for more streamlined policy-making. Jimmy Carter and Lloyd Cutler had some interest in that. Not anyone since.
No clue why Michael Walsh wanted a Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe in 1991. The place hadn’t faced any destruction of physical capital.
As I listened to the accolades and anecdotes about George H. W. Bush, I couldn’t help but wonder which ex-president would be next and what could be said about their lives, accomplishments and values.
The actuaries will tell you Jimmy Carter. The lifespans of Bill Clinton’s proximate relations being what they have been (and given his manifest physical aging), BC might not be far behind.
American history is now an apologetical subdiscipline, so my wager will be that the boundaries of discussion will rule out any sort of critique broadly embarrassing to the Democratic Party. Into the 1970s, Woodrow Wilson was treated congenially by high school history instructors of my acquaintance. Even today, it’s only in starboard venues that he’s given a harsh going over. It may be many decades before BO and BC are properly critiqued by academic historians. If they’re attacked in the interim, it will be from the left. Carter’s constituency on the left has always been weak, so he’ll be flayed far earlier.
Art Deco:
I happen to think that Bill Clinton will last a long time.
He did have bypass surgery, but since then he has completely changed his eating habits.
What’s more, as far as his “manifest physical aging” goes—although many people comment on it, I just don’t see what they’re talking about other than a completely normal getting somewhat older. Clinton is now 72. He’s not going to look the way he did at the time he became president, when he was 46 years old. He looks pretty darn good for a guy of 72. Take it from me—I know a lot of guys of 72.
Although I appreciate the importance of a vegan diet (AesopSpouse is quite rigorous about it), and appreciate that Mr. Clinton has the determination to make the changes he did, when I read the article in full, I had to laugh.
“I glanced at his plate and saw none of the steak, shrimp, fish or chicken on the buffet — just a tangle of green lo mein noodles and a pile of broccoli.
“Is that all you’re eating?” I blurted.
“That’s right,” he replied. “I’ve stopped eating meat, cheese, milk, even fish. No dairy at all.”
…
Once a week or so, he will have a helping of organic salmon or an omelet made with omega-3-fortified eggs, to maintain iron, zinc and muscle mass.”
He has to cheat, even on a diet.
Slick Willie’s gonna be Slick Willie until the day he dies, and probably afterward.
Okay, I had to admit that I never really knew why Bill Clinton got the nickname Slick Willie, although I always felt it described him very well (as did most of the nation, on both sides of the aisle). So I did what any red-blooded American would do and looked it up.
The Frontline article seems to have been written just prior to the election of 1996 between Clinton and Dole; it’s titled “The Choice ’96” although I couldn’t find an actual date on it.
It is long, but worth reading; the parallels to today’s political situation are almost uncannily precise.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice/bill/greenberg.html
The WaPo (Dec 1998) is a puffpiece, forced into reciting the history of the nickname while trying to get around saying out loud how well it fit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/slick122098.htm
I’m not convinced that a vegan diet, modified, is necessarily the best thing for Clinton’s heart. He looks fragile to me. Bush (43) looks his age, but looks more vigorous. And in this age group there’s Trump, who is in excellent health despite being too heavy.
Fortunately I will probably be gone by the time Obama’s state funeral comes.
Kate on December 8, 2018 at 8:12 am at 8:12 am said:
Fortunately I will probably be gone by the time Obama’s state
funeralapotheosis comes.* * *
FIFY
And you & I may outlive him, because of his heavy smoking.
Being slender is no guarantee of lack of heart problems, although being heavy does exacerbate them.
Oh, I forgot about the smoking, AesopFan! I’ve got 20-25 years, optimistically.
The old Trifecta — now, “Right Angle” — guys, namely Bill Whittle, Scott Ott, and Stephen Green — have an episode up called “The Dauntless Courage of a Boy Who Would Be President.” Description:
17:41, at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APqLHl0P4Uw