by Don Frederick
The name that Republicans dare not mention.
The official transcript from MSNBC of Tuesday's debate among the Republican presidential candidates does, indeed, make it official: The men vying to keep the White House in GOP hands appear loath to utter the current occupant's name.
The panel of questioners made direct mention of President Bush (or the "Bush administration") seven times. The forum focused on the economy, which Bush aggressively influenced through a series of tax cuts. And the debate included an extended discussion of the war in Iraq, the defining issue of his presidency.
Yet in their responses, Bush's name did not escape the lips of any of the candidates with even a ghost of a chance of capturing the Republican nomination. And this omission occurred over two hours--longer than the usual 90-minute face-offs.
In a particularly telling sign of the degree to which the president was treated as a nonentity, the first time a candidate invoked his surname, it referred to his father! Sam Brownback, in talking about trade policy, noted that he had worked on that subject during the 1989-93 presidency of George H.W. Bush.
Brownback went on to use the term "Bush administration"--meaning the one in office--twice when answering questions about Iraq. He praised it on military matters; criticized it over efforts to create a cohesive Iraqi government.
Tom Tancredo made a negative reference to "the Bush administration" while conversing about trade.
And Ron Paul broached the president's name sarcastically, saying, "Why don’t we run on George Bush’s foreign policy, of a humble foreign policy and no nation-building." Those were phrases the then-Texas governor frequently used to describe his views during the 2000 presidential campaign.
Paul's comment was the last time the word "Bush" was heard on the stage in Michigan. It causes one to wonder what sort of speaking slot the nominee-to-be will set aside for the actual president at next summer's Republican National Convention.
Don Frederick is a political editor in the Washington bureau of the Los Angeles Times and wrote this entry for Top of the Ticket.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The Democrats have some names they use sparingly also: Monica, Kathleen Willy, Paula Jones, Sandy Berger...need I go on?
Posted by: grover C. | October 11, 2007 8:18 AM
Grover:
All those people were not the sitting President - so why would those names be mentioned by the Democratic candidates??
Posted by: BobinATL | October 11, 2007 9:03 AM
Other Republic names they won't dare utter:
Diaper Dan Vitter, Toe tap Craig, Mark Foley, Michael Flory, Bobby Stumbo, Strum Thurmond and I could go on and on....
Posted by: cate | October 11, 2007 9:09 AM
Of course they aren't going to mention Bush, he is the Worst President Ever! They know that, they aren't COMPLETELY retarded.
(They are just mostly retarded.)
Posted by: nisleib | October 11, 2007 9:25 AM
This is pretty mountain-out-of-a-molehill feeble even by Bush-hating MSM standards.
Posted by: Bruce | October 11, 2007 9:32 AM
Brucey:
What's wrong - can't admit that these guys are all RUNNING away from the record of Georgie?? And the longer we stay in Iraq, the longer this will go on.
This will become a mountain next July, after the conventions. Watch the nominee run away from him then!!
Posted by: BobinATL | October 11, 2007 9:36 AM
That's not enough. The Republican party will be wiped off the map in 2008 unless they come out and speak against the worst president ever.
In fact, the only thing that could save the repubs would be for them to accept responsibility for foisting this idiot on us by telling Nancy to put impeachment on the table, and actually removing Bush from office. Cheney too.
Promises to carry on the Bush Blunder will get the GOP 29%.
Posted by: Bruce Y | October 11, 2007 9:52 AM
grover C, if this is the best you can come up with, you better go home. When history catches up with this administration and bush in particular, it won't be kind. Clinton's names were brought into play by a group of Republican's and backed by "swift boat' styled millionairs that couldn't abide responsible government from a Democrat president. Bush's lack of name was brought on by his own actions and an arrogant Republician congress, both of which seemed to think they stood above the law and the American people. Bush will be forever blessed as one of the most inept to ever sit in the oval office and you might hang a shroud on his legacy, it will certainly be a "no name" one. As far as the Republican politicans distancing themselves from bush, well, when you play with skunks, you need not deny it, people will know it for a long long time.
Posted by: Ken | October 11, 2007 9:52 AM
Lefty Loons, no one comes close to being the WORST president ever as Jimmy Peanutbrain Carter holds that distinction. But then with most Lefty Loons, their sense of history doesn't go back any further than the last time they blinked an eye.
Posted by: John D | October 11, 2007 11:12 AM
Lefty Loons, no one comes close to being the WORST president ever as Jimmy Peanutbrain Carter holds that distinction.
-
Hardly. He successfully brokered peace between Egypt and Israel. A peace that has lasted over two decades. Oh, and economically, his record isn't as bad as the repubs lie about it.
http://www.bartcop.com/deficit-805.gif
The facts reveal that the tag-team of Reagan-Bush was worse.
Posted by: Bruce Y | October 11, 2007 11:27 AM
Johnny D:
The last time I checked, Jimmy Carter did not leave Ronnie Reagan a situation with 135,000 troops bogged down in a foreign country in a civil war.
That is what our Democratic President will be faced with on January 20, 2009, thanks to George Bush.
Posted by: BobinATL | October 11, 2007 11:40 AM
Bobin, but Peanutbrain did leave Reagan a humiliated military and hostages. The Iranians released them cause they knew Reagan would blast them back to the Middle Ages otherwise.
Bruce Y, again you show thev Left has that reading, comprehension and no clue about historicl fact problem. Carter left Reagan an economy in shambles, which did run into Reagan's first two years. Under Carter, unemployment was running high and got higher, inflation was high, interest rates were high, the misery index was created. An economy doesn't change one way or the other as soon as a new president takes over. The eoonomy Reagan inherited was so bad, it took two years to get out of it. Also, Reagan became president in 1981. By the end of 1982, the economy was beginning its comeback, in which the 1980s was one of the most powerful economic gains in the country's history.
Clinton left Bush a weak economy too. But becuase of tax cuts and the more diversified U.S. economy, we got out of the recession early in 2002, which was quite an accomplishment considering Sept. 11 cost the U.S. $1 TRILLION.
Posted by: John D | October 11, 2007 12:34 PM
How often did Al Gore talk about Bill Clinton during the 2000 presidential election? And wasn't Clinton the greatest president since FDR?
Posted by: JB | October 11, 2007 12:56 PM
Johnny??
Remember Iran contra? How we sold arms to Iran to support the contra forces in Nicaragua?
Do we really know for sure that Ronnie or his minions did not go the Iranians right before the election and tell them we will sell you these arms if you hold on to the hostages until we get in office??
And let's not forget that Reagan almost put us into bankruptcy rebuilding the military, which Bush 41 started to disassemble.
Posted by: BobinATL | October 11, 2007 1:07 PM
Paul took it a step further on Abrams and said he would not accept an endorsement from Bush:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2EH_TRa6aU
"It would lower my credibility"
Balls, he has big ones. Big, 10 ton, steel balls. They have their own gravitational field and are drawing more and people to them.
Posted by: Chris S | October 11, 2007 1:41 PM
John "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood" D:
Please tell us what the economy was like when President Ford handed it over to President Carter. Provide links and citations to back up your opinions.
Posted by: BC | October 11, 2007 4:05 PM
This is pretty mountain-out-of-a-molehill feeble even by Bush-hating MSM standards.
Posted by: Bruce | October 11, 2007 9:32 AM
But bagging on Carter and Clinton id ok? Look Bruce you hate that your heros (Bush/Cheney) turned out to be a zeros. I'd cry like a little girl too if I were you. But I'm not.
George Bush and Dick Cheney, the worst mankind has to offer!
Posted by: Alec Baldwin | October 11, 2007 5:17 PM
OK Republic candidates. On the count of 3 say Bush!
One,,,two,,,three,,,,'Bush!'
One,,,two,,,three,,,,'Bush!'
Repeat.
Remember, he's your boy.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 11, 2007 7:56 PM
The Democrats have some names they use sparingly also: Monica, Kathleen Willy, Paula Jones, Sandy Berger...need I go on?
Who's Kathleen Willy. Please go on.
Abramoff, Doolittle, Foley, .....
Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2007 10:12 PM
Bobin, but Peanutbrain did leave Reagan a humiliated military and hostages.
Well, we have a humiliated military now, since they have to recruit high school drop outs and criminals just to fill the ranks. And just in case you weren't aware, Americans have not only been taken hostage under earboy, they have been publicly executed and their murders posted on the internet.
WORST PRESIDENT EVER.
Posted by: snitramc | October 11, 2007 10:17 PM
"Bruce Y, again you show thev Left has that reading, comprehension and no clue about historicl fact problem."
Posted by: John D | October 11, 2007 12:34 PM
Learn to spell.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2007 4:00 PM
High school drop outs are not able to get into the military neither are criminals. Check your facts.
Posted by: Arnie T. | November 16, 2007 4:49 PM