Political Animal
Blog
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.
Viewers of the approximately 3 million Republican presidential debates so far have come to expect certain things. There’s the regular cast of characters, a moderator struggling to knock the candidates off their talking points, and loads of American flags.
But there’s one thing you’d be hard-pressed to find mentioned at a Republican debate.
George W. Bush? Who?
You’d think that the last Republican president — remember, that two-termer who’s 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. He’s 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 Obama by name 560 times. They’ve also invoked Ronald Reagan’s 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.
Let’s 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 nation’s 42nd president. I remember one September 2003 debate in which literally every Dem running for the party’s nomination said they’re the rightful heir to the Clinton legacy.
Al Sharpton, after a while, apparently couldn’t take it anymore. “I know that within the next hour we’ll say that Bill Clinton walked on water,” he joked.
We’re 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 couldn’t stop referencing Bill Clinton, but Republicans in 2012 prefer to pretend Bush doesn’t exist.
This isn’t necessarily surprising. I don’t 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, there’s 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, they’ll be even more right wing.
From journalists’ perspective, there’s no reason to play along with the GOP’s 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 Bush’s if you’re elected?
Facebook
Twitter
Pal2008 on January 21, 2012 10:35 AM:
Easy. GW Bush, #43, wasn't a true conservative.
Danp on January 21, 2012 10:36 AM:
How would your agenda differ from Bush’s if you’re elected?
Awkward... This really isn't where you want to say, "More tax cuts for the wealthy, more wars and more pandering to the religious right", but what else can you do?
c u n d gulag on January 21, 2012 10:42 AM:
"Who?
George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush?
Father and son?
Really?
Nope. Names don't sound familiar...
Oh, wait!
Now I remember.
The one who raised taxes, and the one who spent like a drunken and coked-up sailor!!!
They're RINO's!
Ronald "Maximus" Reagan was the last, true, Republican and Conservative President.
He never blinked when his troops faced adversity, toppled the Soviet Union and mighty Grenada single-handedly, and lowered the budget while lowering taxes.
Now there, THERE, was a true Conservative!!!
mellowjohn on January 21, 2012 10:46 AM:
"Dems in 2004 could stop referencing Bill Clinton..."
umm, couldn't?
c u n d gulag on January 21, 2012 11:02 AM:
mellowjohn,
Yup, I'm sure that's what Steve meant.
But, also, part of the problem was that in 2000, they did.
noncarb on January 21, 2012 11:05 AM:
Well, they could. They just didn't.
cld on January 21, 2012 11:05 AM:
They don't bring up George Bush.
That's not just the candidates, it's also the moderators faults. Many questions could be asked in a way that asks the candidate to distinguish his position from the Bush administrations.
So why don't they?
AndThenThere'sThat on January 21, 2012 11:05 AM:
in the 2004 race, Democratic candidates were tripping over each other to connect themselves to the nation’s 42nd president.
Of course, the Democratic nominee also ended up losing in 2004.
OTOH the Republicans made the 2004 campaign largely about not trusting a flip-flopper.
My my my, haven't we all come full circle.
cld on January 21, 2012 11:07 AM:
They don't bring up George Bush.
They also don't bring up global warming, climate change, pollution or any other environmental issue.
The moderators don't ask about it.
cld on January 21, 2012 11:10 AM:
They also don't bring up gun control.
We know Republicans can't get enough guns and don't think anyone can be too lightly armed, but make them justify it.
Everyone who dies of a gunshot wound dies because Republicans think it's a better world with them dead.
Kathryn on January 21, 2012 11:34 AM:
@CID....it must be that liberal bias the righties are always whining about. Is there a simpler question to ask than the suggested, How would your agenda differ from Bush's if your elected, from Danp at 10:36 A,M, Any media mouth should be able to choke that out easily, bet they won't.
JD Rhoades on January 21, 2012 11:38 AM:
My county in NC voted for Dubbya in 2004 by a 2 to 1 margin. Now there's not a single self identified conservative who will admit to supporting him. In fact, the very mention of the name brings a Pavlovian "when is Obama going to stop blaming Bush!?" response.
withay on January 21, 2012 11:47 AM:
They don't mention 43 BUT Romney has Norm Coleman on his team (http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/130284018.html), John Bolton, General Michael Hayden, and Michael Chertoff (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/on-foreign-policy-romney-breaks-with-advisers/), all Bushies, as advisers. Hard to miss that a Romney administration would be nothing but a return to 43, even if his name is never mentioned.
Crusty the Clown on January 21, 2012 12:09 PM:
Ya know, in my family we never mentioned great-uncle By (short for Byron). He passed away before I was born, but enough was remembered about his predilection for pre-pubescent girls that his name was taboo. I'm happy to hear that the W has finally found his niche.
Bernard HP Gilroy on January 21, 2012 12:14 PM:
>> This, despite due to the fact that most Americans still hold Bush responsible for the sorry state of the American economy.
There, fixed that for you. (Sorry, couldn't resist. I never got a chance to get in on the "fixed that" meme.)
jcricket on January 21, 2012 12:20 PM:
Don't forget that Romney has Bush's Brain Karl Rove on his team. That alone will tell you where Romney's campaign is going (or should I say the depth the campaign is plumbing).
Karl isn't doing this out of his love for Romney. He had to have believed the conventional wisdom of the day that The Mittster was electable in a national race. He wants his cabal *the Bushies* to once again have access to the White House; apparently Mitt was too happy to make a deal with the devil to increase his chances of winning.
The Bushies are laying low for good reason, but never doubt that they are aching to get back into the halls of power.
Think of Rove, Bolton et al as a Stealth Administration waiting for their opportunity.
Craig on January 21, 2012 12:29 PM:
Steve, love your take on all things political . . . but please, proof your work.
linusbern on January 21, 2012 3:01 PM:
Whenever questions are solicited from the public for these debates, they should be flooded by your two, as well as possibly: "Why do you think you would succeed using the same policies as Bush". If the question recurs enough, eventually someone will ask it.
Goldilocks on January 21, 2012 4:24 PM:
His silence is deafening; his invisibility is blinding; his absence is crushing; his unnameability is all-consuming.
And God sent Bush to destroy GOP.
JohnN on January 21, 2012 5:54 PM:
Actually, the analogy is to the way Dems forgot about Carter the moment he left office. Didn't exist.
Daryl McCullough on January 21, 2012 6:06 PM:
The Republicans are all embarrassed to mention George W. Bush, but they all have become exactly like him, only worse.
tom thebisio on January 21, 2012 7:41 PM:
If only I could forget him, get him out of head. I'm sure the families of over 4000 dead american soldiers and 1/4 million irac families would love to have never heard his name let alone forget him. Maybe he is the name that should not be said.
rick on January 21, 2012 10:23 PM:
Craig
Are you the type of person that looks out on a beautiful forest, but only sees the one bent twig? It will always be easier to catch the mistakes of others. If it were easy to see our own mistakes we wouldnt have overlookd them them in the first pace. I'll bet you wre the kid in class that constantly corrected your teachers miatks with one of those shite-eatin grins plastered on your fase.
The Oracle on January 21, 2012 11:41 PM:
Until you pointed it out, I hadn't realized how deliberately Republicans are avoiding the mention of George W. Bush (or his VP, Dick Cheney) or anyone else in the Bush/Cheney administration.
Maybe Stephen Colbert (or maybe, er, ahem, his "independent" super PAC) will break this Republican taboo, running attack ads in Florida in the next week or so, specifically touting the er, ahem, "accomplishments" of the Republicans who most recently had control of the White House, somehow linking all the remaining Republican primary candidates to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney?
Patango on January 22, 2012 8:57 AM:
""JohnN on January 21, 2012 5:54 PM:
Actually, the analogy is to the way Dems forgot about Carter the moment he left office. Didn't exist.""
And Carter was not elected for a 2nd term , and we will not see bush being a successful world/american ambassador to anything either...
The bumper sticker version to Steve's question "Did you vote for bush twice?" to get the ball rolling ...They have run on small gov since regan , they can be crushed on those questions there after , dems need to grow some back bone and proclaim there is nothing wrong with a STRONG CONSTITUTIONAL GOV , held accountable by for and of the people who vote their reps into office ...
Carl on January 22, 2012 1:17 PM:
I guess the commenter to said Raygun never blinked when the troops faced adversity never heard of Lebanon and a couple of hundred dead Marines.
Dan Merritt on January 22, 2012 1:52 PM:
The gop candidates are liars, all of them. dubbya is a FUCKING ASSHOLE that RUINED this country. The gop candidates can't run from the truth of bush and his utter failure as president. The gop losers run from bush and hide behind the church. PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA in a LANDSLIDE this NOVEMBER is a LOCK ! BET on it, it will happen !
Klaatu on January 22, 2012 2:48 PM:
The Dems have one big problem using George W. Bush to campaign against. Obama has taken almost every problem that George Bush created and made it far worse and has adopted Bush goals and been far more successful with them than Bush was. He has
Obama is the worst Republican president ever.
The Democrats have become almost indistinguishable from the Republicans.
Dan Merritt on January 22, 2012 3:25 PM:
klato you are a foxtard ( not news ) uninformed joker. It is the gop house that has OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE and or necessary change. What OBAMA has failed in is all about the fact that he attempted to work with the party of NO. He has wasted time and needs to return to his agenda. The gop has been working against any or All of his policy. dubbya is and always will be the FUCKING ASSHOLE that ruined the U.S.A. The fucked-up right wing media has mis-labeled OBAMA as a LIBERAL, while the facts back-up the truth that he is in fact a Moderate. I wish he would move more to the left. They country is manipulated by the FAR RIGHT WINGED MEDIA. The fox ( not news ) channel is as FUCKED-Up as dubbya !
Diana on January 22, 2012 3:57 PM:
The state of the union is a mess because of the one party system (MIC) the Military.Industrial.Complex which gobbled up the old two party system a few decades ago. The illusion of democrary and two party elections is a myth reinforced by the compromised media and the loss of a viable three branch system of government. The legislative, judicial and executive branchs are interchangable, the judicial branch creating laws, the legislative branch completely ineffectual and the executive branch totally over run by titans of Big Business. The current GOP race is the ultimate in reality TV, cheap stars lining the pockets of the networks for four or five seasons. Campaign weary voters are just waiting for it all to be over so that a new set of Top Dog wannabees dominate the airwaves for the next cycle while no one makes any difference to the American scene but scoots onwards toward their personal goals of joining the 1%.
tko on January 22, 2012 4:49 PM:
Maybe if Obama had done what he should have when he took office, we would be referring to war criminal Bush instead of just a failed president/politician.
J on January 22, 2012 6:57 PM:
aNYONE HEARD ABOUT THE WARNING bUSH GOT NOT TO GO ON A BOOK TOUR IN THE uk, due to the fact that he could be arrested for war crimes?
James Schoettler on January 22, 2012 8:56 PM:
Bill Clinton was the best Republican president since Eisenhower: balanced the budget with policies that would have paid off the national debt by 2010, cut welfare, supported free trade, kept us out of major foreign wars and killed Glass-Steagall. What more could a true Republican ask for?
JayHaden on January 23, 2012 1:19 PM:
If you were Jeb Bush's handlers, would you want the electorate to be reminded?