You have got to be kidding me:
George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton will oversee the National Institute for Civil Discourse in Arizona, sparked by the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. But history shows it faces an uphill battle.
What’s so civil about the red-faced, rage-filled Bill Clinton? The guy tried to blame Oklahoma City on Rush Limbaugh. Using both the bully pulpit and his proxies, he constantly implied that his critics were either racists, sexual deviants, corrupt, or all three. His minions brought us such gems of civil discourse as: “Drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, and you never know what you’ll find.” Clinton had the gall to subsequently tout his own “moral fiber” while denouncing his critics as “sleazy,” telling Peter Jennings: “You never had to live in a time when people you knew and cared about were being indicted, carted off to jail, bankrupted, ruined, because they were Democrats and because they would not lie. So, I think we showed a lot of moral fiber to stand up to that.”
Of course, they were lying. Lying — wagging one’s finger and flat-out lying — also is not traditionally considered part of civil discourse.
That GHW Bush is willing to lend his name and credibility to such an exercise illustrates why the kind of prep-school Republicanism he stands for is dead and unmourned.
That the Bush family continues to show up in forums with Clinton is a sad statement of their inability to comprehend that these acts tacitly support everything about Clinton.
Yes, its a disgrace that anyone considers Clinton, of "Its the economy, STUPID" fame, someone capable of elevating "civility" in public discourse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFree speech for thee but not for me. It's garbage, and we're right to call it garbage, despite my nostalgia for the days of serious, grown-up Presidents like GHWB.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes this exclude the disgusting signs in Wisconsin since those are obviously "satirical" in nature?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's wrong with it? Isn't Clinton Chris Matthews' "President of the World?" As far as George H.W. Bush is concerned, Jimmy Carter's post-presidency is something to be emulated. George W. Bush has his work cut out for him!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can already see where this is going. Clinton will lead the way and the old and rather feeble Bush the Elder will follow and, once again, conservatives will take it on the chin. The Bushes have great respect for the Office of the President and conduct themselves accordingly, but they should steer clear of former Presidents who don't share their respect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe least civil aspect of the whole Giffords episode was the fiction that political discourse had a thing to do with it. This "institute" is a monument to a lack of civility rather than a feeble attempt at a cure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShe's yesterday's news, which is why two has beens are being trotted out for this farce.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI keep hoping that the Presidents Bush will get a clue and realize that the Democrats have nothing but contempt for them and view them as useful idiots. I just cringe every time I see one of them in the news because it always is used by the liberal establishment media to either bash the GOP in some way or to show that Bill Clinton is somehow a great statesman.
I so wish that the entire Bush Family would permanently retire from public life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, the narrative starts that Tuscon is the result of 'uncivil' political discourse and 'eliminationist' rhetoric. Now that's been discredited as the reason, but they still go ahead with this?
Further proof that the narrative is more important than the facts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePoliticians, like prostitutes and public buildings, become respectable if they last long enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbe, it was the brainchild of a Democrat. What do you expect?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy the Bushes (and make no mistake about it, Bush II will come running to the "civility" institute whenever WJC blows the dog whistle) can't get enough of Clinton is beyond me. Even Peggy Noonan couldn't figure it out. Nobody can. Clinton was a creep, a rapist, and a traitor, a man whose serial lying would have made Nixon blush. Even by democrat standards he was awful, yet Clinton could always count on the Bushes to come through for him, though not necessarily the reverse.
Another item I can't fathom: given NR's love for the Bushes (and that Reagan guy), why the magazine isn't commemorating the degree to which both Bushes thoroughly dismantled the Reagan Legacy, leaving nothing but nostalgia?
Must be civil . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe first time I realized that Bush43 would not be much different than his father came in the Spring of 2001 when he ordered Ashcroft to cease investigating the Pardongate fiasco. And Bush41, who was made a fool of by former House Speaker Foley and Senate Majority Leader Mitchell (remember thier 1991 budget compromise?) continued to have nothing but nice things about his former opponents years after they left office.
That is why so many conservatives and libertarians are sensitive about words and phrases like "bi-partisansip, compromise, and reaching across the aisles" being uttered by potential 2012 GOP contenders. The last thing we need in 2012 is another Bush.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"That GHW Bush is willing to lend his name and credibility to such an exercise illustrates why the kind of prep-school Republicanism he stands for is dead and unmourned."
I think that one was aimed at you, Mittens. And your little Jeb, too.
What's gotten into National Review the past few days? Has someone been feeding them red meat? Scott Walker, are you responsible for this? Rick Santelli?
I guess the Kathryn + Rich lovefest for the Rockefeller Republicans doesn't sit well with Kevin, among others. Keep it up!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Clintons may have been involved in criminal discourse, too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemore dumb chit, opps did i violate article 4 section 3 paragrahp 8 of the new civil manifesto?
It's embarassing that reactionary facades are trotted about so easily after 'events'. Society is now like a movie or reality show. It gets very surreal sometimes.
How's Haiti? How was it before the quake? Pretty similar, except you didn't care, then cared for a month, then again didn't. Only one man who we would ridicule and dismiss normally, truely cared, Sean Penn. Bravo.
The louder something becomes, generally will negatively equate to it's ability to function or work properly. As an afterthought, government came to mind, even though I wasn't referring to it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn voting for the worst President on the home page, I hesitated among Clinton, Carter, and FDR. Should I pick the President who did the most economic and Consitutional harm? The most feckless, incompetent, and personally irritating President? Or the most disgusting human being?
The determining factor, in the end, was the instruction provided to the nation's schoolchildren on the meaning and significance of oral sex.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA paradigm is born: "Prep School Republican".
Perfect communicates exactly what is wrong with this musty, barely updated, half a loaf successor to Rockefeller Republicanism (with a 21st century squish of 'compassionate conservatism' and social liberalism). It's a tribal ID, not a carefully considered econo-political philosophy, as exemplified by eructations of the Megan McCain / Barbara Bush (the younger) set.
There's a book in that, Kevin. Consider what PJ O'Rourke did with "Republican Party Reptile" in the 80s.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYet another reason for NMB: No More Bush's.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSigh. I'm amazed H.W. ever SHOT BACK at anybody in that fighter plane he was in! Refusing to fight and submitting to his enemies is a pattern of behavior for him.
Lee Atwater and the goodwill of the Reagan years elected that guy, nothing else. Certainly wasn't any political perceptiveness of his own.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse