Never Trust a Bush
August 17, 2013
HENRY McCULLOCH writes:
George W. Bush’s daughter Barbara tells People magazine she hopes Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2016, because Mistress Hillary is “unbelievably accomplished.” At what?
Being serially cuckolded by Slick Willie? Being a mediocre carpetbagger senator from one of the most liberal states in the country? Being beaten handily by the far less experienced Barack Hussein Obama in 2008? Overseeing a catastrophic failure that ended with the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans?
Politico describes this particular Bush as the “CEO of the nonprofit Global Health Corps, through which she works with the Clinton Health Access Initiative and Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign.”
She must have felt right at home at Yale.
The late Lawrence Auster wrote that most Republicans and establishment conservatives were in fact right-liberals only nominally opposed to the overt left-liberals who inhabit the Democratic Party. In the case of the Bush clan, don’t we have enough evidence yet to drop the qualifier and see them for the unhyphenated liberals they, in fact, have always been? One of Ronald Reagan’s very worst mistakes was to permit the Republican establishment to stick him with GHW Bush as a running-mate. If Dutch had stood firm, America would have been spared this plague of Bushes and the Republican Party might actually have become a conservative party.
Never trust a Bush! And never vote for one either, no matter how lousy the particular Bush’s Democratic opponent may be. Vote third-party or write someone in.
— Comments —
Laura writes:
What is the psychological term for someone who identifies with his captors? Imagine being George W. Bush’s daughter at Yale. Think of facing all those professors, students and parents who despise your father more than anyone else in the whole world. I guess I’m not surprised she’s become a passionate liberal.
Dnr writes:
I believe the term you are looking for is “Stockholm syndrome.”
Sadly, Barbara comes from a long line of liberal women – and men. You may remember that her grandfather George H W Bush was a bitter enemy of Ronald Reagan during the run up to the 1980 election. He despised all that Reagan stood for, yet Reagan generously offered him the VP slot in the spirit of party unity. He went on to trash the victory handed to him by voters desperate to continue Reagan’s legacy into the 1990s, based on his false promise “read my lips – no new taxes”, which ushered in two terms of Bill Clinton. The senior Bush’s wife Barbara, and their daughter in law, Laura, whom I once respected greatly, have spoken publicly in favor of homosexuals being allowed to “marry.” The younger Mrs. Bush said during a TV interview, “When couples are committed to each other and love each other, then they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone has.”
Now she wishes to distance herself from her own remarks. We can’t also forget how the younger President Bush “destroyed the market in order to save it,” thrust No Child Left Behind upon us, and put countless other issues into the public forum while coming down on the side of leftists. I no longer have no trust in these people at all. Simply putting an “R” behind one’s name doesn’t impute conservatism or Christianity. It is time that we come to that realization and start judging ALL people on the basis of their actions, not their carefully cultivated images.
Laura writes:
Stockholm Syndrome — that’s it. Thank you.
Yes, I realize the Bushes have a long track record as liberals, but they were generally Republican. Barbara has gone a step further. She not only says she supports the possible Democratic candidate for president, but she works for a Clinton organization. I can’t imagine how she could have survived at Yale without signaling that she was a different kind of Bush.
Dnr writes:
I realize I didn’t proofread my post enough. Perhaps it is obvious that I meant “I have no trust in these people at all.” Of course “I no longer have trust in these people at all” sums it up pretty well, too, since I voted for both Bushes. Being a Republican meant something in the days of Reagan, and it has taken me years to realize that D vs. R is now a distinction without a difference. I wonder if it was really necessary for her to signal anything at all.
