Unpopular and out-of-sight, President Bush not in demand for GOP

[Freeper]

n2doc  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list       Sat Oct-09-10 07:50 AM
Original message
Unpopular and out-of-sight, President Bush not in demand for GOP    Updated at 10:42 AM
   
PHILIP ELLIOTT
Associated Press Writer
2:53 a.m. CDT, October 9, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Bill Clinton is busy on the campaign trail, helping candidates in races from Florida to Washington state. His successor, George W. Bush? Holed up in Texas.

Bush left office deeply unpopular and sour on domestic politics. After leaving Washington and returning to Texas, he has kept a low profile, working on his memoir and appearing only occasionally at paid speeches. Aides say he has no plans to be a figure in this year's elections, which could see major gains for the GOP.

Republicans, who paid electoral costs in 2006 and 2008 for Bush's unpopularity, are hardly clamoring for the 43rd president to join them on the campaign trail. After all, an Associated Press-GfK poll last month found 55 percent of all Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Bush and 51 percent blame him for the economic crisis that began on his watch.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-us-w...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9285174

Yeah too bad old Bush isn't as popular as Barry. Oh wait very few democrats are asking Barry to help them.

madokie  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list       Sat Oct-09-10 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. Bush is a liar, a thief and a traitor to his country
   
simple as that.

Sounds more like Barry to me.

malaise  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list       Sat Oct-09-10 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I watched an excellent feature on the CIA's secret torture
   
program in Europe - he may well be wanted at the Hague when the EU is finished investigating the secret torture program.

this has toast, Bush is Legs!!1111111

 

hlthe2b  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list       Sat Oct-09-10 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. If only...
   
though Bush* is of course every bit as culpable, I admittedly would prefer to see Cheney hauled before the International Court, if only one Bush* administration representative were to be tried.

And for those who think he is near death at home, he just spoke to some group of thieves in Colorado Springs last week. I didn't hear any details, but it was reported on local news.
   

Keep dreaming buddy.

I love it how Bush who is retired still bugs the shit of these goons.
I swear even after the man is dead they will wanna dig up his body and try it at the Hague. They already want to do that to Reagan.

[Carl]

President Bush is a man of dignity,honor and grace...qualities obviously lacking in the dem Presidents before and after him.

[Randy]

Why should the GOP need to put Bush out on the trail? They don't need help, ODUmmie has done all they need. It's sorta telling of the desperation though when the dims best hope of garnering any support is having to drag out your own former failed impeached figurehead.

[bijou]

Oh yes, Bush is political poison alright ... oh wait ...

A Democrat, in Campaign Ad, Embraces Bush
By ASHLEY PARKER
The Ad Campaign

Earl Pomeroy is not the first Democrat to distance himself from President Obama as the midterms near. But Mr. Pomeroy, the only congressman from North Dakota, just may be the first Democrat to actually embrace  George W. Bush in a campaign ad, as he did on Monday.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/a-democrat-in-campaign-ad-embraces-bush/

[franksolich]

Whoop whoop whoopity de do.

Zippity zappity zap.

Yip yippity yippity yo.

George Bush, the most principled president in my own lifetime, has plenty of time.

It's not his time yet.

One can't think of many ex-presidents who were popular upon immediately leaving office, even in their own party.

Well, there was Ronald Reagan, I guess.

One looks at the Impeached One, but who's he popular with?

The same old crowd, not the general American public.

Being popular with liberal Democrats is not the same thing as being popular with the general American public.

In fact, probably most of the time it's NOT a good thing to be popular immediately upon leaving office; this is w-a-a-a-y too ancient of history for the primitives to know, back during the Neolithic period or something, but the most popular ex-president America ever had was Theodore Roosevelt.

After all the hoopla died down with a few years, look how Ted crashed.

Harry Truman, now considered a "great" president, was poison to Democrats--and the general American public--for years, practically two decades, until just before he died.

Lyndon Johnson didn't live long enough for his greatness to be discerned while he was still alive.

Gerald Ford was enormously popular, among both Republicans and the general American public, four years after he left office.  But he had to hide for a while.

Woodrow Wilson.

Herbert Hoover--now, there's a case.  Left office in utter disgrace, suffering a landslide defeat for re-election in 1932 that rivaled the defeat of the Incompetent One, also running for re-election, in 1980.

Sixteen years after he left office, Herbert Hoover became popular again--nobody wanted him to be president, of course, but he was a big money-raiser, a popular speaker, for both Republicans and the general American public.

The Incompetent One, who left office in utter disgrace, suffering a landslide defeat for re-election in 1980 that rivaled the defeat of the incumbent Herbert Hoover in 1932, doesn't seem popular among Democrats, much less the general American public, which views the sour dour one as an irksome nuisance who won't go away.

Where's the Incompetent One this year, what with all these Democrat candidates needing his help?

Geezuz.

George Bush has been out of office less than two years.

By mid-century, his face is going to be on our $20 bills.

You can bank on it.

[crockspot]

I guess they didn't see this: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/cnntime-poll-was-bush-better-president-than-obama/

[Freeper]

By mid-century, his face is going to be on our $20 bills.

You can bank on it.

You channeling Wee Willie?
 

[franksolich]

You channeling Wee Willie?
 

Yeah.

Although unlike the Bostonian Drunkard, I'm utterly sober.

[AllosaursRus]

Yeah.

Although unlike the Bostonian Drunkard, I'm utterly sober.

Also why you make more sense, Coach, and can actually make a point without boring your readers to death!

[Randy]

Also why you make more sense, Coach, and can actually make a point without boring your readers to death!

And in 50,000 less words to boot.

[true_blood]

I hope you don't mind Carl. I put my little touch on this.

President Bush is a man of dignity,honor and grace...qualities obviously lacking in the dem Presidents before and after him, especially with the current imposter.

[franksolich]

And in 50,000 less words to boot.

I still want to know why the Incompetent One isn't campaigning for Democrats.

True, he's an old man, and his presidency ended in a humiliating mudslide in November 1980, thirty years ago, but number one, he still shows vim and vigor enough to "campaign" for his pet causes, and number two, he was humiliated so long ago maybe people forgot.

So why isn't the Incompetent One out on the road, for Democrat candidates?

Herbert Hoover, another failed president, was older than the Incompetent One when he left office in 1933.....but yet by 1948 he had been "rehabilitated," and was campaigning for Republicans all over the place.  And in 1950 and 1952 and 1954 and 1956 and 1958 and 1960 and 1962 (he died in 1964).

Herbert Hoover in retirement helped a lot of Republicans raise money and get elected.

Why isn't his counterpart doing the same for the Dems?

[Freeper]

I still want to know why the Incompetent One isn't campaigning for Democrats.

True, he's an old man, and his presidency ended in a humiliating mudslide in November 1980, thirty years ago, but number one, he still shows vim and vigor enough to "campaign" for his pet causes, and number two, he was humiliated so long ago maybe people forgot.

So why isn't the Incompetent One out on the road, for Democrat candidates?

Herbert Hoover, another failed president, was older than the Incompetent One when he left office in 1933.....but yet by 1948 he had been "rehabilitated," and was campaigning for Republicans all over the place.  And in 1950 and 1952 and 1954 and 1956 and 1958 and 1960 and 1962 (he died in 1964).

Herbert Hoover in retirement helped a lot of Republicans raise money and get elected.

Why isn't his counterpart doing the same for the Dems?

Well Frank I know if I was a dem running I wouldn't want Barry having my back.

[franksolich]

Well Frank I know if I was a dem running I wouldn't want Barry having my back.

I meant the sour dour old man, the Incompetent One, who was president 1977-1981.

The Dems helped him get elected president in 1976; surely he has an obligation then, to help other Dems get elected.

Where's Jimmy?

[true_blood]

I meant the sour dour old man, the Incompetent One, who was president 1977-1981.
Where's Jimmy?

HA HA!!!

[franksolich]

HA HA!!!

Well, it's a good question.

Sour dour Jimmy's been shooting his mouth off about so many other things.

But he hasn't been going around showing up to support Dems running for office.

I kid you not; he's always in the news, but one never sees he's in the news because he's helping out a Dem candidate trying to win an office.

Like I said, the Dems in 1976 (and 1980) put a lot of time, energy, and money, into getting him into the White House; after 30+ years, it's time for the old grouch to pay back the favor.

But on the campaign trail.....no Jimmy.

[Freeper]

I meant the sour dour old man, the Incompetent One, who was president 1977-1981.

The Dems helped him get elected president in 1976; surely he has an obligation then, to help other Dems get elected.

Where's Jimmy?

Oh well with so many incompetent ones you have to specify. 

[franksolich]

Oh well with so many incompetent ones you have to specify. 

Seriously; a decade and a half after his disgrace, Herbert Hoover came out vigorously helping Republicans raise money and win elections.

He was doing this from 1948 until 1962 (he was 88 years old in 1962, and probably wanted to retire, having done his part).

The Great Humanitarian Herbert Hoover paid back his debt to the Republican party, but the Great Humanitarian Jimmy Carter seems to be reneging on his debt to the Democrat party.

[franksolich]

I really dislike rambling on and on, but I'm curious.

It's been thirty years since the sour old grouch was disgraced; that's three whole decades, time enough to get "rehabilitated."  As already mentioned, Herbert Hoover--not to mention many "enemies of the state" in Stalinist Russia--was thoroughly rehabilitated in half that time.

The sour old grouch owes a debt to the Democrats and the Democrat party; they helped him, and it's long past time he helped them.

Jimmy should be out hoofing the sidewalks of New York, the streets of San Francisco, supporting Dems running for office this year.

Why isn't he?  What's up with that?

[Randy]

More than likely because even all these years later the old bastard is still as toxic as he was back then.

The landslide that carried him back to the peanut ranch was/is/will always be a major  embarrassment to what was the old democrat party before the current crop of communist take overs. So hideous is his time in office that to this day his incompetence still outshines the impeached one and make he and his shrew viable even today. That's the party feeling.

On the other hand barry and his band of merry marauders have the potential of making yimmy look like a saint to history. By the time they get ousted things are going to be so bad that jim's not going to risk getting any of it on him.

[AllosaursRus]

Well, it's a good question.

Sour dour Jimmy's been shooting his mouth off about so many other things.

But he hasn't been going around showing up to support Dems running for office.

I kid you not; he's always in the news, but one never sees he's in the news because he's helping out a Dem candidate trying to win an office.

Like I said, the Dems in 1976 (and 1980) put a lot of time, energy, and money, into getting him into the White House; after 30+ years, it's time for the old grouch to pay back the favor.

But on the campaign trail.....no Jimmy.

Could be because he laid his healthcare defeat at the toes of the fat one, and all inspiring, Ted "the drowner" Kennedy!

That's sacrilege as far as DUmshits are concerned!

[Carl]

I really dislike rambling on and on, but I'm curious.

It's been thirty years since the sour old grouch was disgraced; that's three whole decades, time enough to get "rehabilitated."  As already mentioned, Herbert Hoover--not to mention many "enemies of the state" in Stalinist Russia--was thoroughly rehabilitated in half that time.

The sour old grouch owes a debt to the Democrats and the Democrat party; they helped him, and it's long past time he helped them.

Jimmy should be out hoofing the sidewalks of New York, the streets of San Francisco, supporting Dems running for office this year.

Why isn't he?  What's up with that?

My guess is that with great age and decades of anger the bitter old anti Semite would be hard to explain away.

[formerlurker]

Concerning the election, Mr. Bush said he is going to stay out of the political debate.

“You’re not going to see me out opining or offering my critique,” he said. “Frankly, I don’t think it’s good for the country to have a former president criticize his successor

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/10/the-return-of-president-george-w-bush/

[franksolich]

More than likely because even all these years later the old bastard is still as toxic as he was back then.

The landslide that carried him back to the peanut ranch was/is/will always be a major embarrassment to what was the old democrat party before the current crop of communist take overs. So hideous is his time in office that to this day his incompetence still outshines the impeached one and make he and his shrew viable even today. That's the party feeling.

Well, Herbert Hoover was toxic to Republicans.....for about fifteen years.

There's a lot of similarities between the Great Humanitarian Herbert Hoover and the Great Humanitarian Jimmy Carter; the most remarkable being that they both lost re-election, in 1932 and 1980, by exactly the same mudslide margins.  Clear to like the third decimal point, the two elections were so much alike.

But the one thing they don't share in common is that Hoover, after he was considered "okay" again, enthusiastically stumped for candidates of his party, while Carter hasn't, despite that he's had twice the time Hoover had, to get "rehabilitated."

Now, the sour old grouch wouldn't do any good for the Dems campaigning for office in Nebraska or Montana or Alabama or Idaho, any more than Hoover could've done Republicans in New York or Oklahoma in 1950.  The point is, one goes where one can do the most good, and in the case of the sour old grouch, there's primitive-dominated areas of the country where the voters need "motivated," and he would be of use there.

The primitives after all think Hoover II was the greatest thing since the invention of the marijuana bong; I'm sure he could get the primitives jacked up enough to go out and vote for Dems.

Where's Jimmy?

I tell you, the man has no sense of obligation to the people and party who put him in the White House.

[AllosaursRus]

Well, Herbert Hoover was toxic to Republicans.....for about fifteen years.

There's a lot of similarities between the Great Humanitarian Herbert Hoover and the Great Humanitarian Jimmy Carter; the most remarkable being that they both lost re-election, in 1932 and 1980, by exactly the same mudslide margins.  Clear to like the third decimal point, the two elections were so much alike.

But the one thing they don't share in common is that Hoover, after he was considered "okay" again, enthusiastically stumped for candidates of his party, while Carter hasn't, despite that he's had twice the time Hoover had, to get "rehabilitated."

Now, the sour old grouch wouldn't do any good for the Dems campaigning for office in Nebraska or Montana or Alabama or Idaho, any more than Hoover could've done Republicans in New York or Oklahoma in 1950.  The point is, one goes where one can do the most good, and in the case of the sour old grouch, there's primitive-dominated areas of the country where the voters need "motivated," and he would be of use there.

The primitives after all think Hoover II was the greatest thing since the invention of the marijuana bong; I'm sure he could get the primitives jacked up enough to go out and vote for Dems.

Where's Jimmy?

I tell you, the man has no sense of obligation to the people and party who put him in the White House.

I tend to think his loyalty is aside guys like Chavez and Castro. Even though the Bumbler is tryin' like hell to imitate them, it doesn't sell with most Americans. Especially independents!