Parler Share
Commentary

Don't Let the Left Forget. These Photos Show Exactly How Horribly They Treated George HW Bush

Parler Share

The left has mostly been loving on George H.W. Bush in a backhanded way this weekend after his death. Their tone isn’t exactly right to pull off the exercise at hand — they’re basically blaming Bush for being rich and aloof while saying being rich and aloof is better than rich and combative, nudge nudge, wink wink — but you get the basic tone of the articles.

Bush was preferable to Trump, which is why they never treated him the same way they treated Trump.

Except they did. And I’m not talking The Associated Press’ appalling tweet announcing his death (“George H.W. Bush, a patrician New Englander whose presidency soared with the coalition victory over Iraq in Kuwait, but then plummeted in the throes of a weak economy that led voters to turn him out of office after a single term, has died”).

No, instead I’m talking how they treated him in life, particularly when he was president. The media doesn’t seem to remember, but some people do — namely, conservative radio host Larry Elder.

Elder began cataloguing #FakePraiseForGHWB on Twitter, collecting all the things that the left (and even some on the right) said or did regarding George H.W. Bush during his time as president or vice president.

Trending:
Republican Shouts 3 Words at the Top of His Lungs After Biden Mentions Fentanyl Deaths

Take James Carville, the vulgar opportunist behind Clinton’s run at the White House:

To be fair, Carville has stayed out of the spotlight since Bush’s death, which is probably for the best. Some haven’t, including conservative Washington Post columnist George Will.

Related:
Matt Walsh Noticed Biden's Bizarre Behavior at SOTU: 'Classic Symptom of Alzheimer's'

Yes, now that George H.W. Bush is trendy, Evan Thomas, former Newsweek editor-at-large, is sorry he called George H.W. Bush a wimp — not because of Bush’s service in World War II, where his plane was shot down and he almost lost his life. Not because of his years of government experience or anything like that. No, because Bush can now be portrayed as suitably liberal and anti-Reagan, somehow.

“As the 41st president, Bush was anything but a wimp. In 1991, he had the courage to abandon his own ‘read my lips’ vow and instead raise taxes in the cause of restoring fiscal sanity to the federal budget, left badly out of whack by his predecessor, Ronald Reagan,” Thomas wrote.

“Agreeing to raise taxes was necessary to get the Democrats to agree to spending cuts, but it was political suicide for Bush. It cost him a second term in office, which he had almost surely earned by bringing the Cold War to a successful, peaceful conclusion and by driving Iraq from Kuwait in the 1991 Operation Desert Storm. Bush had wisely limited the first Gulf War to its stated war aims and resisted the temptation to push on to Baghdad. If only his own son had been so prudent after 9/11 and stuck to liberating Afghanistan without plunging into Iraq.”

Yes, George H.W. Bush wasn’t a wimp because he can be used as a rhetorical bludgeon against Ronald Reagan and his own son. I’m going to leave that one out there for summary judgment.

Of course, it should probably surprise nobody that Thomas’ leanings certainly weren’t uncommon among those reporting on Bush in those days.

And they were probably somewhat on the bus when it came to Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Outragedland, when it came to their feelings about Bush:

Oh, and then there was the easy, rock-star treatment Bill Clinton got during the 1992 presidential race, which presaged how candidates like Beto O’Rourke are covered these days:

Yes, the “culture of corruption.” They had no idea what was about to hit them.

Of course, there’s always The New York Times, which famously reported on a “gaffe” (which is now considered highly questionable, even by a reporter at Slate) that Bush made at a grocery scanner during the 1992 campaign.

And here’s the Gray Lady now:

Gosh, why would it no longer possess that civility? Certainly nothing to do with The Times, which basically pumped a dubious story into circulation that cemented how many Americans felt about President Bush.

Do you think the media is acting hypocritically?

In an article titled “George H.W. Bush’s Most Famous Out-of-Touch Gaffe Probably Didn’t Really Happen,” Slate’s Molly Olmstead (certainly no fan of the former president; she wrote an extensive article wondering why more people weren’t discussing groping allegations involving Bush which were plausibly the result of his Parkinson’s disease) noted the details of the story simply didn’t match up with reality.

“Soon after the incident, The Associated Press reported that the scanner’s manufacturer defended the president and said the scanner Bush examined was not a typical grocery model and had the new ability to weigh produce and read torn labels,” Olmstead wrote.

“The Times defended its original article by reviewing a video of the event and claiming it showed that while he was shown new and old scanners, he was clearly impressed by the old ones as well, according to Snopes. It’s not abundantly clear from the video, and other publications disagreed with the paper’s interpretation of the incident.”

When Snopes and Slate are saying it didn’t happen, it probably didn’t. But please, let’s wonder why we don’t possess civility now and how the people at The Times are diligently trying to restore it.

Some commenting on the threads even posted images that showed an even darker side. We warn you, these do contain some vulgarity. Viewer discretion is advised:

This is how the media treated George H.W. Bush when they had the chance to make all these wonderful-sounding points about his legacy, no matter what their validity. Instead, they wait until a) he’s dead and b) they can use him to make a point.

George H.W. Bush was the Donald Trump of his era, as far as the media was concerned. His son got the same treatment. So did GOP presidential also-rans Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

McCain, you may remember, got the same fawning treatment upon his death earlier this year, despite the fact the media loathed him for most of his political career. Romney and Dole, I’m sure, will get “the passing of a different era” obits when they pass, all of which attack the modern GOP and conservative movement as too combative.

Meanwhile, the same publications have wondered what in Washington could be named after Ted Kennedy upon his passing.

It’s beyond transparent. It’s also beyond insulting for a man who gave his life to government service. It would be vulgar for the media and the left treat him in death as they did in life. However, it would be a lot more sound for them to simply give a factual account of his life without prejudice and to honor him for his service, not for the fact he makes a convenient player in the ongoing media narrative of the angry GOP.

Thankfully, Larry Elder did the legwork and proved just how two-faced this particular brand of coverage is.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →



We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Tags:
, , ,
Parler Share
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he's written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he's written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014. Aside from politics, he enjoys spending time with his wife, literature (especially British comic novels and modern Japanese lit), indie rock, coffee, Formula One and football (of both American and world varieties).
Birthplace
Morristown, New Jersey
Education
Catholic University of America
Languages Spoken
English, Spanish
Topics of Expertise
American Politics, World Politics, Culture




Conversation