• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Bush Laughs at Himself on Kimmel:

NeverTrump

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
President Bush has been one of the most gracious ex-Presidents I've followed. He has stayed relatively out of the spotlight after 2008, and even if he is slowly coming back around, most of his digs at Trump have been light-hearted critiques about what he would do in the situation. I think Bush had the plan to remove himself from the public spotlight for one President after him no matter who it was. If Trump was the one who won in 2008, I still don't think Bush would be criticizing him. It would be too soon.

I can't say the same for Democratic ex-Presidents who have stayed in the public spotlight after their terms, and have been active politically too. Obama plans to do the same as Carter, and Clinton. Although I think Carter has been generally the least active Democratic ex-President. Obama appears to be wanting to be even more politically active even after ex-President Clinton.

 
Here's another clip from the same interview:

 
ModerateGOP said:
President Bush has been one of the most gracious ex-Presidents I've followed. He has stayed relatively out of the spotlight after 2008, and even if he is slowly coming back around, most of his digs at Trump have been light-hearted critiques about what he would do in the situation. I think Bush had the plan to remove himself from the public spotlight for one President after him no matter who it was. If Trump was the one who won in 2008, I still don't think Bush would be criticizing him. It would be too soon.

I can't say the same for Democratic ex-Presidents who have stayed in the public spotlight after their terms, and have been active politically too. Obama plans to do the same as Carter, and Clinton. Although I think Carter has been generally the least active Democratic ex-President. Obama appears to be wanting to be even more politically active even after ex-President Clinton.

Click to expand...


Obama is going back to being a community organizer outside of Chicago where it is much safer.
 
ModerateGOP said:
President Bush has been one of the most gracious ex-Presidents I've followed. He has stayed relatively out of the spotlight after 2008, and even if he is slowly coming back around, most of his digs at Trump have been light-hearted critiques about what he would do in the situation. I think Bush had the plan to remove himself from the public spotlight for one President after him no matter who it was. If Trump was the one who won in 2008, I still don't think Bush would be criticizing him. It would be too soon.

I can't say the same for Democratic ex-Presidents who have stayed in the public spotlight after their terms, and have been active politically too. Obama plans to do the same as Carter, and Clinton. Although I think Carter has been generally the least active Democratic ex-President. Obama appears to be wanting to be even more politically active even after ex-President Clinton.

Click to expand...


To be fair Clinton has only remained politically active because of his wife. It's actually pretty sad what has happened to him, the democrat party has abandoned the ideals he championed and he has been forced to remain tethered to them and publicly denounce all of his accomplishments. If he were younger I could see him switching parties.
 
Crovax said:
To be fair Clinton has only remained politically active because of his wife.
Click to expand...

Um Bill Clinton started the Clinton foundation after his term in 2001. He was in a significantly higher position than his wife who was just starting out as a Senator who probably won that race largely due to HIS name. He also wanted the foundation at first to be used for money for the Clinton Presidential Center. I think you got this backwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

Sure later, it's been said Bill's dying wish is to see Hillary become President, but Hillary was not the reason the Clinton Foundation exists.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Um Bill Clinton started the Clinton foundation after his term in 2001. He was in a significantly higher position than his wife who was just starting out as a Senator who probably won that race largely due to HIS name. He also wanted the foundation at first to be used for money for the Clinton Presidential Center. I think you got this backwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

Sure later, it's been said Bill's dying wish is to see Hillary become President, but Hillary was not the reason the Clinton Foundation exists.
Click to expand...

And how is the Clinton Foundation's origins significantly different from the George W Bush foundation? Seems like they both did the same thing but with the Clinton's once Hillary became a senator then it completely morphed and Bill was forced to stay in the political sphere.
 
Crovax said:
And how is the Clinton Foundation's origins significantly different from the George W Bush foundation? Seems like they both did the same thing but with the Clinton's once Hillary became a senator then it completely morphed and Bill was forced to stay in the political sphere.
Click to expand...

Maybe she amplified his actions and gave a boost to the Clinton Foundation, but I don't think Bill ever said he would step away from politics. He was at the height of his career before the scandal and was a political mastermind in his prime. If the party came calling he would have helped them either way.
 
ModerateGOP said:
President Bush has been one of the most gracious ex-Presidents I've followed. He has stayed relatively out of the spotlight after 2008, and even if he is slowly coming back around, most of his digs at Trump have been light-hearted critiques about what he would do in the situation. I think Bush had the plan to remove himself from the public spotlight for one President after him no matter who it was. If Trump was the one who won in 2008, I still don't think Bush would be criticizing him. It would be too soon.

I can't say the same for Democratic ex-Presidents who have stayed in the public spotlight after their terms, and have been active politically too. Obama plans to do the same as Carter, and Clinton. Although I think Carter has been generally the least active Democratic ex-President. Obama appears to be wanting to be even more politically active even after ex-President Clinton.

Click to expand...


Unlike Reagan and Bush Sr....Carter, Clinton and Obama were all still relatively young when they left office and still had a lot of years ahead of them to devote to public service. As for Bush, it was probably good that he lay low because of the war....but judging from his close friendship with Michelle Obama...I suspect that he and Obama were in close contact with each other a lot more people thought.

Carter was very active after he left office...perhaps even a bit meddlesome. But he was a genuinely good man and will likely be remembered most for his Habitat for Humanity.
 
Moot said:
Unlike Reagan and Bush Sr....Carter, Clinton and Obama were all still relatively young when they left office and still had a lot of years ahead of them to devote to public service. As for Bush, it was probably good that he lay low because of the war....but judging from his close friendship with Michelle Obama...I suspect that he and Obama were in close contact with each other a lot more people thought.

Carter was very active after he left office...perhaps even a bit meddlesome. But he was a genuinely good man and will likely be remembered most for his Habitat for Humanity.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean, even still Jeb should have made it a lot farther in the election than he did, but the Bush name definitely tarnished him in some circles in the base. I was amazed how he was able to circumvent that somewhat though.

Well even Trump says he's friends with Obama now, so that means that Obama is probably either the nicest guy on the planet or he has some mad skillz ;)
 
ModerateGOP said:
President Bush has been one of the most gracious ex-Presidents I've followed. He has stayed relatively out of the spotlight after 2008, and even if he is slowly coming back around, most of his digs at Trump have been light-hearted critiques about what he would do in the situation. I think Bush had the plan to remove himself from the public spotlight for one President after him no matter who it was. If Trump was the one who won in 2008, I still don't think Bush would be criticizing him. It would be too soon.

I can't say the same for Democratic ex-Presidents who have stayed in the public spotlight after their terms, and have been active politically too. Obama plans to do the same as Carter, and Clinton. Although I think Carter has been generally the least active Democratic ex-President. Obama appears to be wanting to be even more politically active even after ex-President Clinton.
Click to expand...

Independent of what he says, it sounds like you don't think ex-Presidents should be in the public spotlight or do politically-connected things. Why not?



Many of them have used their remaining clout to do good things. I certainly wouldn't expect them to sit at home. As for speaking about their successor(s), well, they are once against private citizens. They shouldn't hold back.
 
Mr Person said:
Independent of what he says, it sounds like you don't think ex-Presidents should be in the public spotlight or do politically-connected things. Why not?



Many of them have used their remaining clout to do good things. I certainly wouldn't expect them to sit at home. As for speaking about their successor(s), well, they are once against private citizens. They shouldn't hold back.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I think Bush did the right thing when he left due to how toxically polarized everything was. That being said, I don't think Ex-President's should have a lot of power over their party and working through stuff in the background. Clinton did a lot of that especially in the past decade 2000-2010 as the Clinton Foundation grew. I don't mind Carter's work he did with Habitat for Humanity and I probably won't enjoy whatever Obama plans to do especially if he continues to finance shady things in the Democratic Party like what he seems to be suggesting. So yeah, part of me thinks that if you have been President, you have no reason to continue on in the party politics, but you are free to offer advice. I just do not think they should be integral parts of the political machine anymore.

Also if you go right out of the chair attacking your successor and continue to do it, that's fine by me.

But if you stay away for one year, say you won't go back to politics, and then go back and start attacking the opposition, that's hypocritical. That being said, the statue of limitations for that should be one two term Presidency. That should give people ample time to move on.
 
Last edited:
ModerateGOP said:
I don't know. I think Bush did the right thing when he left due to how toxically polarized everything was. That being said, I don't think Ex-President's should have a lot of power over their party and working through stuff in the background. Clinton did a lot of that especially in the past decade 2000-2010 as the Clinton Foundation grew. I don't mind Carter's work he did with Habitat for Humanity and I probably won't enjoy whatever Obama plans to do especially if he continues to finance shady things in the Democratic Party like what he seems to be suggesting. So yeah, part of me thinks that if you have been President, you have no reason to continue on in the party politics, but you are free to offer advice. I just do not think they should be integral parts of the political machine anymore.

Also if you go right out of the chair attacking your successor and continue to do it, that's fine by me.

But if you stay away for one year, say you won't go back to politics, and then go back and start attacking the opposition, that's hypocritical. That being said, the statue of limitations for that should be one two term Presidency. That should give people ample time to move on.
Click to expand...

last to first....

1. Well, no, hypocrisy is "do what I say, not what I do." Taking a year off of politics isn't hypocrisy.

2. It's also not true that there is no reason to continue in party politics. There are any number of reasons. What is wrong with an ex-President wanting to help members of his own party? What is wrong with an ex-President criticizing someone he doesn't like?

I don't think it makes sense to expect them to disengage from politics, especially when they probably didn't get many of the things they wanted to do done.
 
Mr Person said:
1. What is wrong with an ex-President wanting to help members of his own party?

2. What is wrong with an ex-President criticizing someone he doesn't like?

3. I don't think it makes sense to expect them to disengage from politics, especially when they probably didn't get many of the things they wanted to do done.
Click to expand...

1. There is a difference between giving advice, and being a clog in the system.
2. Depends on the manner in which he does it. As I described
3. If they couldn't follow through on campaign promises in eight years. Then perhaps what they hope to accomplish cannot be accomplished in the public sector.

As I said it all depends on the person and how they left things. I think Bush and Carter did the right things for them based on their circumstances. I think Clinton got greedy and Obama doesn't want to let go, but we'll see how active he gets as the years go on.
 
ModerateGOP said:
1. There is a difference between giving advice, and being a clog in the system.
2. Depends on the manner in which he does it. As I described
3. If they couldn't follow through on campaign promises in eight years. Then perhaps what they hope to accomplish cannot be accomplished in the public sector.

As I said it all depends on the person and how they left things. I think Bush and Carter did the right things for them based on their circumstances. I think Clinton got greedy and Obama doesn't want to let go, but we'll see how active he gets as the years go on.
Click to expand...

Then I suppose we disagree. I don't see any principled reason why an ex-President should bow out. As for pragmatics, if what they are doing is bad, the party will suffer.
 
ModerateGOP said:
President Bush has been one of the most gracious ex-Presidents I've followed. He has stayed relatively out of the spotlight after 2008, and even if he is slowly coming back around, most of his digs at Trump have been light-hearted critiques about what he would do in the situation. I think Bush had the plan to remove himself from the public spotlight for one President after him no matter who it was. If Trump was the one who won in 2008, I still don't think Bush would be criticizing him. It would be too soon.

I can't say the same for Democratic ex-Presidents who have stayed in the public spotlight after their terms, and have been active politically too. Obama plans to do the same as Carter, and Clinton. Although I think Carter has been generally the least active Democratic ex-President. Obama appears to be wanting to be even more politically active even after ex-President Clinton.

Click to expand...


Bush was one of the most inept presidents of our time. Perhaps surpassed in doing a lousy job only by Jimmy Carter. I thought that thanks to him Democrats would keep the presidency for a generation. Sadly he was followed by Obama who people like but thought we were on the wrong track with his policies. To be followed by the worst candidate in our lifetime.

Bush is a petty, not intelligent guy who led us to war in Iraq to finish what his dad started, and now attacks Trump who kicked his brother's a**.
 
Bush2, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice are all bumbling fools, any idiot could have done better at the Iraqi Post Invasion. Oh wait, there was an idiot in charge.
 
ModerateGOP said:
President Bush has been one of the most gracious ex-Presidents I've followed. He has stayed relatively out of the spotlight after 2008, and even if he is slowly coming back around, most of his digs at Trump have been light-hearted critiques about what he would do in the situation. I think Bush had the plan to remove himself from the public spotlight for one President after him no matter who it was. If Trump was the one who won in 2008, I still don't think Bush would be criticizing him. It would be too soon.

I can't say the same for Democratic ex-Presidents who have stayed in the public spotlight after their terms, and have been active politically too. Obama plans to do the same as Carter, and Clinton. Although I think Carter has been generally the least active Democratic ex-President. Obama appears to be wanting to be even more politically active even after ex-President Clinton.

Click to expand...


Proceeds from his book go to an organization that helps veterans.

Let me also note that Bush seems to be as he was before the Neocons turned him around. Other than that period in his life, he has always been a pretty decent guy. He got his credibility back when he kicked the Neocons to the curb towards the end of his second term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom