General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums‘He Who Should Not be Named’
Posted with permission.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/he_who_should_not_be_named034905.php
He Who Should Not be Named
By Steve Benen
Following up on an item from a few weeks ago, Emily Heil reported yesterday on the most taboo topic at the Republican presidential candidate debates.
But theres one thing youd be hard-pressed to find mentioned at a Republican debate.
George W. Bush? Who?
Youd think that the last Republican president remember, that two-termer whos only been out of the White House a scant three years might come up frequently.
Not so. In fact, George W. Bush is the invisible man of the GOP race, the all-but-forgotten Ghost of Administrations Past. Hes its He Who Should Not be Named, in Harry Potter parlance.
There have now been 16 major debates for the GOP presidential field. The candidates have brought up President Obamas by name 560 times. Theyve also invoked Ronald Reagans name 221 times. And what about the two-term Republican president whose policies these guys are eager to bring back? Poor George W. Bush has only seen his name come up a pitiful 56 times.
This, despite the fact that most Americans still hold Bush responsible for the sorry state of the American economy.
Lets not forget the recent historical context here. Bill Clinton left the White House in January 2001, and in the 2004 race, Democratic candidates were tripping over each other to connect themselves to the nations 42nd president. I remember one September 2003 debate in which literally every Dem running for the partys nomination said theyre the rightful heir to the Clinton legacy.
Al Sharpton, after a while, apparently couldnt take it anymore. I know that within the next hour well say that Bill Clinton walked on water, he joked.
Were at a comparable point now with regards to Bush three years after a two-term president left office, his party is looking to nominate a challenger to an incumbent. Dems in 2004 could stop referencing Bill Clinton, but Republicans in 2012 prefer to pretend Bush doesnt exist.
This isnt necessarily surprising. I dont imagine many would-be GOP presidents were eager to bring up Hoover in the 1936 election, either.
But Bush deserves to be part of the discussion. From Dems perspective, theres value in reminding voters that Bush is responsible for nearly all of the messes Obama is trying to clean up, and nearly all of the Republican candidates are eager to bring return to Bush-era policies only this time, theyll be even more right wing.
From journalists perspective, theres no reason to play along with the GOPs willingness to erase Bush from the larger discussion. Indeed, there are some pretty straightforward questions the Republican field should be forced to answer: Do you believe the Bush presidency was a success? How would your agenda differ from Bushs if youre elected?
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and that's what they've been doing; as if there wasn't a Duhbya or Cheney presidency.
Duhbya was an embarrassment, and they know it. Now they're trying to conflate President Obama's successes with Duhbya. That's the only time when I read anything about him among the Republican sheep.
Now they're even claiming Obama had outspent Duhbya and Duhbya created more jobs than he really did!
Cognitive dissonance really is a requirement among GOP sheep otherwise there's no way they'll stay with that Greedy One Percent Party.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)More of of a fascist communist democrat.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)bring the facts out about what was left for Obama. But as soon as Dems mention it, the media and the GOP will say that whatever Bush did or left is not relevant because Obama should have been able to fix it all within the first half of his administration despite the opposition from the Right.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)but just like you mention, they're brushed off with "when will Obama take responsibility?", or "Bush isn't pResident anymore!" or "I didn't vote for him", or "Obama! Obama! Obama!". And they get away with it on most news outlets (Fox Propaganda doesn't count since they're not a news outlet, but Bush has all but vanished from there, too) because they're not called to task.
The Democrats have shifted some and are pointing out the Republicans in Congress as the major problem keeping this country from moving forward, that's why Congress' approval ratings are the lowest in history. This is a good thing, though, since Congress has been given a pass too many times already when it's that branch of our government that's the biggest problem in this country.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)The Republicans avoid it like the plague and Democrats pretend it never happened.
Bush wanted, more than anything in the world, to be remembered and idolized as a 'War President'. Except it turned out to be a huge crime no one can justify, so they just ignore it, and him.
Soon they will distract us from it by waging another war.
izquierdista
(11,689 posts)and the Democrats codify it as "business as usual"*.
*[font size = 1] which, by addendum of a signing statement, this Administration will not use. Offer good only until end of this Administration, habeas corpus not available in all locations, subject to other restrictions, your mileage may vary.
spanone
(135,859 posts)Obama spent the 850 billion dollar surplus
Obama started the iraq and afghanistan wars
Obama signed tarp into law
Obama began our torture program....
see, there was no george w. bu$h*
he never existed
Lawlbringer
(550 posts)Obama IS Bush, so...
Any argument I give them is invalid.
Me: "It took 8 years for Bush to make this mess, it'll take Obama 8 to fix it."
Them: "Wake up, Obama is just another puppet like Bush, following the same masters who wanted war and bailouts. Stop being one of the Sheeple."