Elder Bush Decries Lack of Civility in Politics

(CBS)

Former President George H.W. Bush told CBS News that President Obama "is entitled to civil treatment and intellectual honesty when it comes to critics."

(at left – Former President George H.W. Bush, Barbara Bush and Peter Maer)

Referring to the tone of national discourse he said, "I don't like it. The cables (TV) have a lot to do with it."

In the radio interview, Mr. Bush said the volume of criticism aimed at him when he was president was not as "day in and day out."

The Republican elder statesman said, "It's not just the right." He complained, "there are plenty of people on the left."

While he said he does not believe in personal name-calling, he singled out MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow calling them "sick puppies."

"The way they treat my son and anyone who's opposed to their point of view is just horrible," Mr. Bush said.

"When our son was president they just hammered him mercilessly and I think obscenely a lot of the time and now it's moved to a new president," he added.

With a chuckle, Mr. Bush said his son's critics "weren't singled out as much as they should have been."

He said harsh criticism "should not be par for the course. To the degree it turns off one student or one person from serving that's bad."

Mr. Bush said verbal attacks on Mr. Obama "sometimes crosses the lines of civility." He also said it crosses "party lines and ideological lines."

Mr. Bush does not believe most of the attacks on Mr. Obama are racially motivated. He said, "You might find some racists out there but I don't think the attacks per se have to do that he's an African American."

Hours before hosting Mr. Obama at a volunteerism event on the Texas A & M campus, Mr. Bush said, "People ought to be civil. I worry about yelling at people and this yelling mentality that seems to accompany presidents."

Asked about recent verbal attacks on Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush said some of the national tone has worsened but he said he's reluctant to say the "ugliness" is new. Mr. Bush cited tough criticism of presidents throughout history.

He also noted he has differences with the current president but he would not elaborate.

Mr. Bush also said his own life is "very good, very private."

George H. W. Bush to Texas A&M: Treat Obama Well

---

(CBS)

Peter Maer is a CBS News White House correspondent. You can read more of his posts in Hotsheet here.

[truthseeker7]

The Bush family is one of if not the worst things to be spawned by this country. GH is a nasty scumbag and GW is like that nasty neighbor kid who tortured animals. They should both be put away. The century of deceit thuggery conducted by their family should be exposed and they should be cleansed from our history. The wives must also be discgusting human beings to have allowed such evil to propogae without drowning their offspring!

[Hosheen]

If he really feels that way, he should turn young George W. over his knee and delver a sound spanking. After all, it was this Alpha Hotel and his followers that introduced the "with us or against us" mentality.

"W" is the person most responsible for the reprehensible state of America today. He should be doing hard time in the worst prison we can find anywhere in the world.

[jamessyl]

I have always liked George H.W., even though I think he is something of a space case. He clearly hasn't watched the people he's calling 'sick puppies.' While I do think that Olbermann can be a little over-the-top, Rachel Maddow is a class act. Very possible the classiest in cable news. She does have a point of view, but we all agree that that's okay, don't we? She interviews people with whom she has great differences fairly, and gives them every opportunity to respond. They invariable say that they have been treated fairly. Bush 43 is famous for his rather eccentric remarks, and I guess this is just one more of them, but he owes these two an apology, especially Ms. Maddow!

[schubaby]

Regardless of what side we are on, things in America have gotten just down right nasty. I do respect the rights of others to have an opinion that is opposite to mine. May we remind ourselves that we can feel deeply passionate about an issue at opposing ends of the spectrum and "agree to disagree." I miss the days when people could discuss hot topic issues, but never attack the personal character of the one you disagreed with.

[MPHgrad]

Well said schubaby.

[awareadams]

Life has its usual ironies; such it is for the "president" who, even more than Nixon, mastered and specialized in playing "The race card". In 1988 he was properly recognized as the "Willie Horton" president. The day after his election in November 1988 his sleezy campaign chief, Jim Baker, scoffed over his dirty politics and smears with the blithe comment, "the election is all over, and its time to forget it. After we pick a winner, we all rally behind him. That's the American Way." These filty republican sleeze and smear artists now practice their hypocracy in words. His son in 2004 put frosting on the "Race Card" cake with the master of filty politics and smears, Karl Rove.
Vanity, vanity, all republican politics is vanity, smear, race-card, and millions of dollars paid for it by drug companies, radical religious freaks, and other moneyed interests who depend on goverment favoritism.

[jxknowles]

He's making the same point as President Carter, but in different words. I agree the criticisms of W were also vicious at times. Things have gotten out of hand.

[scubbasteve01]

You are so right there is lack of civility in politics and the FOX News Channel used to report on the NEWS.
But now there just a left wing news channel that represents Michael Steele and the GOP. The news is fair and balanced when the commentary and news obviously doesn't show what party it is representing and defending. When it becomes the focus of the news 24 hrs a day you have to sit back and ask yourself.
What really is going on here? After hearing one attack after another just report the news and not make it your own personal media circus.
FAIR AND BALANCED? Fair and balanced is reporting the news not showing a political agenda is being addressed to help out the voters in the other party who came out on the losing end and want somebody else to be their voice of reason to express there mixed up views. Which after Inauguration ' 09 have taken on a very vile and racist point of view that could never have reflected what would have happened to other President's in office. News channels are supposed to report on the news and not take any sides.
Because there was never a Black President in office before who was called out by a Senator who had racist militant ties to the Sons of the Confederacy in politics before. So you know what?
Let's all try to figure all of this out together am I right?

[MPHgrad]

The saddest and honestly, the scariest concern of the vehement attacks on either side is that it may and can incite violence on both small and enormous scales. The Rwandan genocide is a classic example of the power of media (certainly this does not excuse in any shape form or fashion that most egregious of atrocities). The radio stations there promoted the massacre and spread propaganda like wildfires. I support free speech, but some speech arrives at a point where it is no longer protected as it becomes yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[noloyalisti]

Yeah, because he is a fat and happy rich freak who wants to keep the status quo. That is a whole lot of us serfs serving the corrupt, filthy rich (like him).

You have to clean up our corrupt, tainted system of the big corporations running the media, the military and the government. As in most other fascist countries like this one, you have to attack the root cause of the problem, the big money and big corporations.

[Questionews]

I remember not that long ago that it was considered rude & inappropriate to discuss politics & religion in mixed company. Most decent folk would read the paper, listen to the campaign and vote how they felt & kept their political deviancy to themselves. Now it seems that many on both sides take great pride with their "in-your-face" political opinions. The anonymity of being able to rant & rave on politics in forums like the internet have shielded people from having to be civil and they reject any kind of political compromise. There are several that post on this site that serve as classic examples of what most would call politically intolerant of others.
(Political bigotry is what I call it. Yes, the label fits very well. they're bigots)
Do I really need to list the out-there / political extremists or are they already obvious.