Let's fast forward ahead here a little bit. After a president retires they generally evolve into some sort of "trusted voice" for wise, seasoned advice. They have the experience of the presidency, they are now on the outside looking in and presumably have a more encompassing perspective from which to give their views. They become far less the political animals they used to be and can speak their minds and afford to be frank and candid. They become Wisemen for the nation.

George Bush Sr. is and Richard Nixon was often sounded out for their foreign policy expertise. Jimmy Carter is a world recognised voice for human rights. Ex-President Clinton has turned into the Father of the Democratic party and is a trusted advisor on domestic issues.

So what can you see GWB turning into after he retires? Do you think he will become a valued resource for advice on important issues? Will he continue to be a public force?

I don't see it. I don't see anyone really valuing this guy's opinions in some sort of reverent way. The conservatives like him as a ball carrier because he stays on message but will they ever really see him a philosopher of the party? of US govt and policy? He's useful now but what will he become to all of us in the future? What do you see as George Bush's role say 8-12 years from now?

I'm serious.

Somewhat.

Mayor of Washington, D.C.

What do you see as George Bush's role say 8-12 years from now?

I'm serious.

Somewhat.

I see a lot of golf in his future.

Drunk and stoned, asleep in the gutter...

I read somewhere recently that GWB made inquiries about his becoming Commissioner of Baseball during the period in which Bud Selig was acting Commissioner. He's no less qualified than some other Commissioners and given that W has been willing to take orders from Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co., the owners would not have to worry about W's interfering with their interests.

Let's fast forward ahead here a little bit. After a president retires they generally evolve into some sort of "trusted voice" for wise, seasoned advice. They have the experience of the presidency, they are now on the outside looking in and presumably have a more encompassing perspective from which to give their views. They become far less the political animals they used to be and can speak their minds and afford to be frank and candid. They become Wisemen for the nation.

George Bush Sr. is and Richard Nixon was often sounded out for their foreign policy expertise. Jimmy Carter is a world recognised voice for human rights. Ex-President Clinton has turned into the Father of the Democratic party and is a trusted advisor on domestic issues.

So what can you see GWB turning into after he retires? Do you think he will become a valued resource for advice on important issues? Will he continue to be a public force?

I don't see it. I don't see anyone really valuing this guy's opinions in some sort of reverent way. The conservatives like him as a ball carrier because he stays on message but will they ever really see him a philosopher of the party? of US govt and policy? He's useful now but what will he become to all of us in the future? What do you see as George Bush's role say 8-12 years from now?

I'm serious.

Somewhat.

He was never elected, he was awarded the office. He lost the majority vote.

I read somewhere recently that GWB made inquiries about his becoming Commissioner of Baseball during the period in which Bud Selig was acting Commissioner. He's no less qualified than some other Commissioners and given that W has been willing to take orders from Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co., the owners would not have to worry about W's interfering with their interests.


That's interesting. This I could picture. I might actually like him in that role.

Ex-President Clinton has turned into the Father of the Democratic party

Yes, literally. He's a freaking joke. His primary legacy is about blowjobs. Who can take this guy seriously? He's no more a statesman than McGreevey will be.

I have no idea of Bush's statemanship potential. We'll just have to wait and see. Much will be determined by this election and then maybe the next 4 years.

Yes, literally. He's a freaking joke. His primary legacy is about blowjobs. Who can take this guy seriously?0He also won two elections (without any SC funny business) and <i>survived</i> perhaps the most organized and sustained personal and political vendetta against a Presidency in history. Whether <i>you</i> respect him or not (weren't we talking about Democrats, anyway), you can't argue with success.

Heck, the reason you are still pissed off at him is because <i>he beat you!</i> :D

. His primary legacy is about blowjobs. .

... in the minds of people curiously obsessed with it. It's strange. The only time Clinton's blowjobs occurs to me is when a certain element of the Republican Right brings them up. I've just always found this whole morbid focus kind of oddly interesting. You'd think people would have other things to brood on. You really would.

Yes, literally. He's a freaking joke. His primary legacy is about blowjobs. Who can take this guy seriously? He's no more a statesman than McGreevey will be.
to find out that the Clintons lost $60,000 on Whitewater and Bill had CONSENSUAL sex (as if no other President has had similar "activities"). Repubs, though, usually have to pay for it. And real classy to kick a guy when he's in the hospital. Also, you may remember that the economy was, as it often is under Democrats and rarely under Repubs, a whole heck of a lot better than it is NOW under W's inept stewardship.

I have no idea of Bush's statemanship potential. We'll just have to wait and see. Much will be determined by this election and then maybe the next 4 years.
Okay, I'll bite re W's "statesmanship potential." First of all, a statesman, by definition, is a "leader in government." So if W still has to work on his potential, Doug, I don't see a rosy legacy for him once he's out of the White House.

... in the minds of people curiously obsessed with it. It's strange. The only time Clinton's blowjobs occurs to me is when a certain element of the Republican Right brings them up. I've just always found this whole morbid focus kind of oddly interesting. You'd think people would have other things to brood on. You really would.

I'm not really talking so much about my perception -- but rather than of a big chunk of the country (and maybe even the world). What will he be remembered for? Personally, I couldn't care less whether he got blowjobs in the oval office, but there's no doubt that doing so, getting caught, and lying about it almost cost him his job and dominated his legacy. Heck, even the liberal biased media jumped all over that story. ;-)

Yes, literally. He's a freaking joke. His primary legacy is about blowjobs. Who can take this guy seriously? He's no more a statesman than McGreevey will be.

I have no idea of Bush's statemanship potential. We'll just have to wait and see. Much will be determined by this election and then maybe the next 4 years.

Clinton did much good during his time in office. To boil it down to thirty seconds of sexual activity is quite the "freaking joke".

Yes, literally. He's a freaking joke. His primary legacy is about blowjobs. Who can take this guy seriously? He's no more a statesman than McGreevey will be.

I have no idea of Bush's statemanship potential. We'll just have to wait and see. Much will be determined by this election and then maybe the next 4 years.


Yes, I understand. But dispassionately and objectively, whether you like it or not, Clinton remains a hugely popular and effective public figure. I think his approval ratings when he left office were higher than Reagan's. The Democratic party looks to him for guidance and it's no mistake that he has Kerry's ear.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether he got blowjobs in the oval office, but there's no doubt that doing so, getting caught, and lying about it almost cost him his job and dominated his legacy.Only because you <i>did</i> care enough to make it a federal case in the first place.

... in the minds of people curiously obsessed with it. It's strange. The only time Clinton's blowjobs occurs to me is when a certain element of the Republican Right brings them up. I've just always found this whole morbid focus kind of oddly interesting. You'd think people would have other things to brood on. You really would.

it's simply that good little republican wives won't do the deed. and that gets the republican men just a wee bit tightly strung, and extremely envious of any other who manages to secure himself one.

especially without having to resort to a month's worth of groveling, or forking over some cash.

Zip, nada, zilch. As for Clinton, never mind all the Republican ideas he "co-opted" such as welfare reform, the right just can't get over the fact that he put an end to the Ronald Reagan era love fest by beating Bush. I still stupefies me that the right gets so obsessed with people having sex. Clinton, unwed mothers, gays, their whole "moral" agenda centers on the fact that they just cannot get over the fact that people have sex.

it's simply that good little republican wives won't do the deed. and that gets the republican men just a wee bit tightly strung, and extremely envious of any other who manages to secure himself one.

especially without having to resort to a month's worth of groveling, or forking over some cash.
LOL! That's one of the best retorts I've seen here. And it's probably true. :D

it's simply that good little republican wives won't do the deed. and that gets the republican men just a wee bit tightly strung, and extremely envious of any other who manages to secure himself one.

especially without having to resort to a month's worth of groveling, or forking over some cash.

So, you are saying that Hillary was/is Republican?

. . .

Uh, well, you see, if she were a Democrat, she would have been doing things in bed that would have obviated the need for Monica.



. . .

You're making the same marital role assumptions that confound Republican attempts to understand the Clintons.

Uh, well, you see, if she were a Democrat, she would have been doing things in bed that would have obviated the need for Monica.


There's always a need for a Monica ;-)

I see Bush taking on the Gerald Ford role: playing golf, falling over things, showing up for odd football games, and occasionally making rambling, incomprehensible television appearances. Come to think of it, it's perfect fit. Ford was never elected either. ;-)

Yeah, he's going to continue trying to follow Ronald Reagan's footsteps while walking backwards.

If not that, nothing of note. Like the puppet he is, when the strings get cut, the curtain will fall, and the audience will split.

I see Bush taking on the Gerald Ford role: playing golf, falling over things, showing up for odd football games, and occasionally making rambling, incomprehensible television appearances. Come to think of it, it's perfect fit. Ford was never elected either. ;-)

We may have a winner here!