From the same article — with juicy bits from a new book about Bush:
For a commencement address at Furman University in spring 2008, Ed Gillespie wanted to insert a few lines condemning gay marriage. Bush called the speech too "condemnatory" and said, "I'm not going to tell some gay kid in the audience that he can't get married."...
Laura Bush... "was secretly a Democrat for all intents and purposes, though it really wasn't much of a secret."
Posts
77 comments:
Agreed. What an embarassment Jimmy Carter has become.
History will be far kinder to George W. Bush than it was to Carter. 100 years from now, Carter will be deemed the worse President of the 20th Century (yes, even below Nixon).
Fred, why wait a hundred years?
Everyone knows that Jimmy Carter is history's greatest monster.
I don't know how much of this book is true, but from the excerpts, it sounds a lot more entertaining than most of these tell-all memoirs.
More Latimer at the GQ web site:
http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_10957
And cue downtownlad on the gay comment:
Five,
Four,
Three
Stop ruining George and Laura's image:
They're monsters, dammit, MONSTERS!!!
You ought to be ashamed.
The Macho Response
Wait a minute. When Obama called Kayne West a jackass, I thought that something said off record, was supposed to be, you know, off record.
WV: bedulost
Text message: i found the bed u lost
There was a comment I read the other day went something like-
"I'm sure Obama is rolling out the old nasty fossils like Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew to convince us of the need for death panels."
[paraphrasing-I think it was on a thread of Allahpundit's.]
Still defending the torturer-in-chief Ann?
Shame on you.
Are you telling me he's not already put away?
What an embarassment Jimmy Carter has become.
I don't think that's accurate. He demonstrated to the nation was an embarrasment before his first year in office.
What's with the trolls and this shame shit? It's really silly but now it shows up on every thread. There must be a way to block them.
What's with the trolls and this shame shit?
Are you claiming the president of the United States committing war crimes (as there is little doubt by now) is "this same shit". This same shit is the litany of excuses you pathetic excuses for Americans keep concocting not to be appalled by it.
"Still defending the torturer-in-chief Ann?"
no it seems she stopped defending obama a while ago.
wait, you were talking about him werent you?
youre not still on about the guy who left office 9 months ago?
"What's with the trolls and this shame shit? "
leftists wield shame as a weapon because shame had/has such a powerful effect on shaping their identities. they assume that shame shapes everyones thinking. progressivism is motivated by shame and envy and uses both of those destructive emotions in the service of their agenda.
Freder, aren't you talking about Cheney? I thought he was the one running the torture show.
"
Are you claiming the president of the United States committing war crimes (as there is little doubt by now) is "this same shit". This same shit is the litany of excuses you pathetic excuses for Americans keep concocting not to be appalled by it."
um take a deep breath honey and reread what the nice man wrote. the word is "shame" not "same"...
sorry to interrupt your selfrighteous fit of pique, carry on.
tell us what we should do about the current war criminal in chief? because hes still committing the same war crimes as the last guy.
Bush was apparently repeatedly informed by his legal advisers and national security experts that the treatment was not torture and not violating American law.
Anyway, when the left starts screaming that FDR's name be removed from monuments and buildings for his far more dubious actions then I'll listen to their complaints today.
Until then, stuff it.
More proof that Barbara Bush was the only one with balls in that Dynasty.
If Barbara Bush had balls, she's be George Bush.
This same shit is the litany of excuses you pathetic excuses for Americans keep concocting not to be appalled by it.
The fact that you can't raise even an ounce of rage over the nihilism exhibited by these Islamofacist barbarians makes you the pathetic one.
Is Oliver Stone writing this book too?
It doesn't sound there there's anything damaging in the book. Looks like Bush came out pretty well in the tell-all, especially with the Carter comment.
Freder Frederson said...
Still defending the torturer-in-chief Ann?
Shame on you.
You use the word shame as if you actually know what it means.
A very decent man. I miss him a lot. I hated his spending, but loved his basic human principles.
I agree that history will judge him kindly.
WV: "retura" Wish we could.
It is the fondest hope of the right that Jimmy Carter be deemed the Worst President Ever.
Failing that, they are preparing to award the title to Obama.
But Bush shall not be criticized. Ever.
That's a confusing headline for this post. It made me think Isn't GHW Bush already 82?
Who the fuck does this fucker think he is? Why the fuck should he think anyone will want anything to do with his diapered ass when he's 82? Put him away now, I say.
Sort of makes the Bush White House sound very nice.
Only thing that irked me in the HuffPo post was the assertion that Bush centered his 2004 campaign on gay marriage. That's bull, but it's the bull the media was shoveling, so no surprise HuffPo ate it up.
(And yes, that bit of a mixed metaphor was made on purpose and the corresponding mental image fully intended. How else would you become so full of it except by eating it?)
I thought former presidents don't criticize other presidents, present or former. At least that used to be the unwritten rule. Doesn't matter that Dems are in the gutter. Pubbies shouldn't join them there.
ricpic - the Dems have already trashed all hallowed traditions, so why not get in the mud? Let's shred the Constitution and start all over.
If Bush did do that-he did it private..
Big difference.
Are you claiming the president of the United States committing war crimes (as there is little doubt by now)
Ironic that this is coming up in connection with a thread (loosely) about Carter. The Reagan administration lied about it in the 80s, to preserve American dignity and honour, but in the 90s, documents came out showing the Carter Administration's close involvement in the decision to sic paratroopers on protestors in Kwangju, in South Korea, in conjunction with the 1980 military coup d'etat, a decision which resulted in the Kwangju massacre, where some hundreds (or thousands) of unarmed civilians were slaughtered.
Carter's co-conspirators, Chun Doohwan and Noh Taewoo, got the death sentence and life in prison respectively (though those sentences were later commuted). What did Carter get?
A Nobel prize.
Sometimes, life's not fair.
Can we just put W. away now?
Balfegor-
it will later emerge that top officials in the Carter administration gave approval to South Korean contingency plans to use military units against the student and labor protests, having been misled by faulty intelligence that exaggerated the seriousness of the situation)
You mean South Korean paratroopers-right?
Your comment leaves that up in the air.
You focus on the Jimmy Carter thing (presumably because you like the comment, so you presume it's true) but ignore the rest of the memoir excerpts out there, you know, the parts where Bush comes off like the callow, careless jerkoff that all us dirty hippies said he was since 2002... but you should read those because they actually make me like him more.
“This is the last bullet we have,” the president said at one point, referring to the bailout. “If this doesn’t work…” He shook his head, and his voice trailed off. That wasn’t good enough for me. If this doesn’t work, then what? We’re done? America is over? I looked around at everyone else. What does that mean?
After finally getting the speech draft turned around and sent back to the teleprompter technicians, we trudged back to the Family Theater, where the president rehearsed. In the theater, the president was clearly confused about how the government would buy these securities. He repeated his belief that the government was going to “buy low and sell high,” and he still didn’t understand why we hadn’t put that into the speech like he’d asked us to. When it was explained to him that his concept of the bailout proposal wasn’t correct, the president was momentarily speechless. He threw up his hands in frustration.
“Why did I sign on to this proposal if I don’t understand what it does?” he asked.
The president was clearly frustrated with what was going on, but there was little he could do at this late hour. He went up to take a nap, saying he was beat.
On Obama: “This is a dangerous world,” he said for no apparent reason, “and this cat isn’t remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you.” He wound himself up even more. “You think I wasn’t qualified?” he said to no one in particular. “I was qualified.” Guffaw.
On Palin: “I’m trying to remember if I’ve met her before. I’m sure I must have.” His eyes twinkled, then he asked, “What is she, the governor of Guam?”
Everyone in the room seemed to look at him in horror, their mouths agape. When Ed told him that conservatives were greeting the choice enthusiastically, he replied, “Look, I’m a team player, I’m on board.” He thought about it for a minute. “She’s interesting,” he said again. “You know, just wait a few days until the bloom is off the rose.” Then he made a very smart assessment.
“This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for,” he said. “She hasn’t spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let’s wait and see how she looks five days out.”
All set to have the leftists defend Carter as vociferously as the right defends W.
[crickets]
Bush comes off like the callow, careless jerkoff
He doesn't come off that way in anything you just posted, so what are you talking about?
You mean South Korean paratroopers-right?
Yes. And no. Look at the Bush I explanation (which conceals the role of the Carter White House in approving the paratrooper deployment). The Korean units deployed in the massacre were, I believe, under "Combined Forces Command," which was effectively under the control of the US Government. They were released to ROK command for the purpose of suppressing the protesters, and, uh, accidentally on purpose slaughtered them all. So direct command authority was kind of mixed there. US sign-off appears to have been needed for the final push.
Also missing from Althouse: the name "Gale Norton."
"just by looking at a person’s online friends, they could predict whether the person was gay. "
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/09/20/project_gaydar_an_mit_experiment_raises_new_questions_about_online_privacy/
_______________
"I thought former presidents don't criticize other presidents, present or former. At least that used to be the unwritten rule. Doesn't matter that Dems are in the gutter. Pubbies shouldn't join them there."
HW criticized Clinton, while the later was still in office. And in a published interview.
The "fact" that "presidents don't do that" was pulled out of the GOP's ass.
Still, keep repeating it. The smugness is good for you.
The excerpts from this book have really humanized Bush for me!
Why, with a few more heartwarming quotes from that wonderful rapscalion, I might be forced to retract my claim that he was a Quisling who promoted plans that were corrupt and un- and anti-American, and corrupt, incompetent, and un- and anti-American.
(Hilarious note: those links will probably make some "liberals" like Bush.)
Balfegor-
Thanks for the links-interesting.
Carter sure "accomplished" a lot in four short years...
"People on Facebook are overwhelmingly bourgeois to begin with "
(Not me. My fabricated friend list contains some of the most ecclectic souls around, by design. Couldn't live without my close and personal 5,000 +++ imaginary FB friends, that I hand-created myself !)
Mont:
".., the president was clearly confused about how the government would buy these securities. He repeated his belief that the government was going to “buy low and sell high,” and he still didn’t understand why we hadn’t put that into the speech like he’d asked us to. When it was explained to him that his concept of the bailout proposal wasn’t correct, the president was momentarily speechless. He threw up his hands in frustration."
Yep Bush was a dolt.
But, since BO has essentially doubled-down on the same policies, he's twice the dunce.
""If I'm ever 82 years old and acting like that have someone put me away.""
Dude, haven't you read the Obamanator's HC plans for the elderly? "Best practices"/rationed care = early "retirement". I forgot - you're stupid; Bush Chimp. I'll give you a hint - look into the evolution of the UK's "Nice" program.
Fear not, you'll never reach the age of 82, even if you "Shut Up".
Amy Carter said...
Who the fuck does this fucker think he is? Why the fuck should he think anyone will want anything to do with his diapered ass when he's 82? Put him away now, I say.
9/21/09 1:22 PM
Come on Amy, I mean, I understand why you are angry, but lighten up...he is your dad.
Montagne - I read the GQ article too, and if Matimore is truthful, while bumbling and inept, Bush and the Bushies still retained some good instincts about people.
In addition to Bush's comments about Palin and Obama being thought completely unprepared for the job, they also thought McCain was a treacherous, stupid old prick willing to well anybody or anything out if the media would give him another "courageous former POW accolade" for doing so. . The loathing of McCain exceeded anything felt towards any Democrat, inc Obama, who Bush personally liked, while thinking he was Leftist and not yet fit, if ever, for the Oval Office.
Some other great purported Bush quotes:
After Hillary trashed him on something in the Primaries, Bush remarked "Hillary will find out exactly how wrong she is if she ever gets to park her fat ass in this chair."
"If bullshit was the currency of the realm, Joe Biden would be a billionaire".
His wife's "inner Democrat" and her real dislike for the extremists of the Religious Right she had to smile and make nice-nice with.
Apparantly Bush II hates Carter and is as contemptuous of him - as much as Bill Clinton is, and as much as Reagan disliked the guy when he was still sentient.
Bush was a pretty bad President, though he did have a few moments before his misjudgments, his faith in Reaganomics, his reliance on neocons, the Religious Right, and Wall Street dragged his legacy into the toilet.
But Carter's long life is useful. For his continuing inept meddling in affairs he should have realized his own personal limitations and have shut up about - constantly reminding people of just what a disgrace to the Office he was. And further cementing his place as the worst modern President.
My uncle has a flagpole with the Marines Flag and the US Flag on it. He lowered it for NIxon and Reagan, lowered it on his own recently for Norman Borlaug, a man he felt deserved it. Said he'd lower it for Bush, Clinton if they pass. Dubya if he passes unexpectedly soon, But said he would be damned if he ever lowers it for an instant for Jesse Jackson or Jimmy Carter croaking..
Um...back to the Latimer book...
I read the article at GQ, and I got a distinct feeling I met guys like this when I worked in politics. FYI, I worked in "issue" politics, "outside"--meaning, I didn't work for the government or a politician, and the outside group I worked for was focused on issues, not a trade or industry group. Different experiences, sorta like different exhibits at the zoo.
But anyway, this Latimer guy struck me as someone who poses, or really imagines himself, as a true conservative believer, when in fact he was a climber. He describes his rapid climb, and trashes several--if not all--the folks he once deigned to work for. Isn't that curious? I suppose you can be surprised to find out your hero isn't so heroic, once, but repeatedly? Hmmm...
Add to that his one apparent talent--a way with words--and one wonders what his true ambition was all along--to get in a position to have a really good book to write. Hmmm...
I'll probably read the book--for free, at Barnes and Noble--and since I have opposed Bush and all his works and all his empty pomps since before he ran, I am sorely tempted to believe all the bad stuff--but I'm skeptical...
wv: "hattle" -- what happens in Macy's hat department the day after Christmas
Well then I guess they should have put Bush away years ago. His actions to get us into the Iraq war was as stupid as LBJ chasing communists. Bush was an inept president. Only his African AIDS work and one environmental action were any good.
Carter wasn't much better. Although his post presidency has been pretty good. As has Clintons. Actual Bush the first has had an okay post presidency too.
Bush II has a ways to go.
"Bush was an inept president. Only his African AIDS work and one environmental action were any good. "
yeah, those are the only things he did.
oh, theres that whole "no terrorist attacks in america after 9/11/01" thing and basically crushing al qaeda as a functional organization. but who cares about those. those are warmonger evils.
good thing he helped africa and gaia and stuff.
How good would this be: Carter needs life saving medical care, and the powers that be, say, nope.
WV: mingneu
Mingling in life decisions.
"phosphorious said...
It is the fondest hope of the right that Jimmy Carter be deemed the Worst President Ever.
Failing that, they are preparing to award the title to Obama.
But Bush shall not be criticized. Ever."
Oh, please, get over yourself. Many of us have plenty of criticisms of Bush, including but not limited to his awful handling of the Chinese jet collision incident, his inability to be conservative about spending, and his administration's inability to properly communicate issues regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.
The thing we complain about is the excessive hyperbole about the man. It's one thing to build a reasoned critique, however disagreeable it is, but it's a whole other thing to bring out the Nazi comparisons and all the other BS about him. The problem is not the existence of the critiques, it's the inaccuracies as well as the utter lack of perspective caused by the obsessive derangement over Bush's mere existence.
You overreached.
yeah, those are the only things he did.
oh, theres that whole "no terrorist attacks in america after 9/11/01" thing...
Short memory, fella! Remember anthrax?
If that list at HuffPo was the "hilites" who cares. Sounds pretty boring, as far as tell-all goodies go. Reminder: that is a *good* thing in the world of politics. Those were the days.
###
Darcy: exactly. I have lots of problems with Bush's decisions. But I think it's obvious he was a decent, classy man.
Matt - Carter wasn't much better. Although his post presidency has been pretty good. As has Clintons. Actual Bush the first has had an okay post presidency too.
Kind of silly to judge a President's performance by noting things he did outside the job.
By that measure, Hoover was a brillant President because he was a brilliant mining engineer, master of modern logistics for humanitarian operations, and a great Think Tank creator.
Nixon for the enormously consequential books he wrote after leaving office, and the invaluable advice to leaders he gave as the Soviet Union dissolved.
===================
TS said...
yeah, those are the only things he did.
oh, theres that whole "no terrorist attacks in america after 9/11/01" thing...
Short memory, fella! Remember anthrax?
===============
I think people mean major terrorist attacks by AQ. Not a disgruntled non-Muslim scientist that kills 7 people. Or the black Muslims who were the DC snipers. Or AQ's killing people abroad, inc US soldiers.
It seems like commenters (and maybe Althouse) think that this makes Bush look good. The man demagogued his way to reelection by stoking populist fear of gay marriage but all the sudden he's afraid of offending a gay college student. Earnest social conservatives and gays and their friends and families should all feel manipulated and used.
Joseph,
Don't worry. Dick Cheney favors gay marriage. Cheney's view ultimately will prevail over the narrow-minded views of W., Obama, and Biden.
100 years from now, Carter will be deemed the worse President of the 20th Century (yes, even below Nixon)
I suspect that a hundred years from now, when the country is a few decades into the recovery from the collapse of the 1930s-2040s welfare state and global depression resulting from America's default on its debt, the worst President of the 20th century will be clearly identifiable as Franklin Roosevelt.
Carter was and is a wanker, but he didn't do any major permanent damage to the country.
The man demagogued his way to reelection by stoking populist fear of gay marriage but all the sudden he's afraid of offending a gay college student.
How did Bush "demagogue his way to reelection by stoking popular feat of gay marriage"? Bush and Kerry had the same position on gay marriage. So did McCain and Obama. In fact, every Democratic and Republican President and Presidential candidate we have ever had has been openly against gay marriage.
A couple of the history buff hard-line anti-Bush Libertarians I know are convinced that however bad they thought Bush was, he could never be as bad a president as Woodrow Wilson, with FDR as number two.
I think it's just an indication of how poor a grasp of history many people have when looking at Bush (or Carter or Obama, for that matter).
I remember one progressive commenter bashing us righties for not seeing Bush as the perpetrator of the "greatest Civil Rights violation in American History", which, of course conveniently overlooks slavery, the treatment of Native Americans, the internment of Japanese Americans and Jim Crow laws, amongst other stains on American history.
Revenant, thanks for pointing that out.
the worst President of the 20th century will be clearly identifiable as Franklin Roosevelt.
FDR defeated Hitler and Tojo in less time than it took W. to defeat Saddam Hussein. In just one year, 2008, my 401K lost one-quarter of its value. On W.'s watch, the pump price of gas doubled, and gold reached the level it hadn't reached since the last idiot President, Carter.
FDR defeated Hitler and Tojo in less time than it took W. to defeat Saddam Hussein.
Iraq surrendered twenty days into the war. Hussein was caught eight months later. If your history book is telling you that WW2 lasted less than nine months, well, that explains a lot about your grasp of history.
As for your claim that FDR "defeated Hitler and Tojo", I'll simply point out that the war against the Axis started long before the United States got involved and ended after FDR was dead. It is now widely recognized that Hitler had already lost the war for Germany (by stupidly attacking the USSR) before Pearl Harbor even happened. FDR's leadership was neither necessary nor particularly important.
On W.'s watch, the pump price of gas doubled, and gold reached the level it hadn't reached since the last idiot President, Carter.
On FDR's watch, the United States was saddled with social programs whose current unfunded liabilities exceed the net worth of the American people. Oh, and thanks to the taxes levied to pay for his program I am poorer to the tune of a couple of years' wages. George Bush could have launched nuclear strikes against American cities and done less damage to the long-term health of America than FDR did. FDR signed the death certificate of the United States government; it was just post-dated by a century or so.
How good would this be: Carter needs life saving medical care, and the powers that be, say, nope.
But that's never the way it works. People in positions of power will get every benefit of medical technology. When the rest of us are getting painkillers for our problems Carter will have his own wing at Bethesda.
Revenent - "100 years from now, Carter will be deemed the worse President of the 20th Century (yes, even below Nixon)"
I suspect that a hundred years from now, when the country is a few decades into the recovery from the collapse of the 1930s-2040s welfare state and global depression resulting from America's default on its debt, the worst President of the 20th century will be clearly identifiable as Franklin Roosevelt."
An interesting thesis..
For the 20th Century Presidents - not including 21st Century Dubya, who is about on the Hoover/Gerry Ford level..I'm pretty confident that in 100 years, the historians will have Jimmy Carter at the bottom, Warren Harding next. But the reputations of JFK, Reagan, FDR could all be considerably lower than they are today depending on how bad the welfare state and Reaganomics are seen to be, and if the German economic miracle, the 3rd Way, Eisenhower, and Nixon get more credit for moves to defeat Communism than Reagan, JFK, and Truman currently get.
I think the reputations of Bush I, Eisenhower, and Nixon will be far higher.
Nixon? Yep, Nixon did all the stuff JFK and LBJ and FDR did..and Truman was actually a bit worse in
character and "civil liberties" things than Nixon, as was Wilson.
And in 100 years, much of the talk may well be of how the Jewish media gave other Presidents complete passes for doing what Nixon did and worse but went after Nixon full bore for "persecuting" Jews who turned out to be Soviet sympathizers after all. And so manipulated, people swallowed the media narrative and tossed Nixon out not for the Rule of Law stuff FDR, Wilson, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Clinton also "trammled on"...but in a high moral snit that looks more ridiculous each year.
Only a former W Secretary of the Interior would believe that she could award leases to Royal Dutch Shell PLC for lands containing $700-billion worth of recoverable oil , and then, a few months after leaving government, accept a position as counsel to.... Royal Dutch Shell PLC , and get away with it.
The Justice Department has determined that there are enough facts to commence an investigation as to whether former Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton illegally used her position to benefit Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the company that later hired her, according to officials in federal law enforcement and the Interior Department.
When I contacted Fox and other Cable "news" show to inquire as to why they were not covering this story, they all said they were so busy covering ACORN that there wasn't time for other storys. Howver I was told that if I could show that there were a lot of black people or even a few pimps or hos involved, they wold be happy to give the story air time.
Just noting how Carter is C-fudd's soul mate, if you follow my drift.
Yes, Mutaman. Shame, shame on Fox News for covering the criminal activities of the current President's political allies instead of focusing on the possible criminal activities of the previous President's political allies.
FDR defeated Hitler and Tojo in less time than it took W. to defeat Saddam Hussein.
I'm looking for the punchline in this joke and am not finding it.
Oh wait, you're being serious? Just a suggestion, look up WW2 on Google, see the dates when we entered the war and when Hitler blew his brains out and Tojo surrendered. Then get out a calculator since advanced arithmetic is clearly too tough for you and add up the years we were fighting Hitler and Tojo versus the 3 weeks were fighting Saddam and then get back to the rest of the class.
Bush could have defeated Hussein a whole lot faster if he'd firebombed Baghdad as we did Tokyo, Dresden, etc. Not to mention nukes, such as we used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Instead, he showed some restraint.
This is a problem?
How did Bush "demagogue his way to reelection by stoking popular feat of gay marriage"? Bush and Kerry had the same position on gay marriage.
Bush advocated amending the Constitution to protect virtuous straight Americans from the existential threat of gays getting married. He even brought it up in his State of the Union addresses. Most Democrats refrain from advocating full equality but they also don't demagogue the issue and pretend that letting gays marry will undermine American families. Democrats tend to phrase their opposition to same sex marriage as deference to popular will. Rhetoric matters.
Cheney's supposedly enlightened view seems to be that we should let gays marry unless he is seeking elective office, in which case America needs to be protected from gay marriage.
Democrats tend to phrase their opposition to same sex marriage as deference to popular will.
When asked if the passage of a gay marriage amendment in Missouri would cost him votes in the state, Democratic candidate John Kerry replied "no, because I have the same position as President Bush". He went on to state "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman".
So while it may be the case that your fantasy version of Kerry was merely showing "deference" to "the popular will", the real Kerry who really ran for President claimed to be both personally and politically opposed to legal recognition of gay marriage. The sole difference was that Bush spoke in support of an amendment, while Kerry said that the existing legal marriage bans were good enough.
Oh, sure, Kerry was just "demagoguing". He isn't actually against gay marriage. But it looks like Bush was just playing politics, too -- how about that.
Post a Comment