The opening of the George W. Bush library later this week is already kicking up some coverage discussing the rehabilitation of the former president’s image. But some of the coverage doesn’t merely talk about the issue—it contributes to the effort to cast the Bush years in a more positive light.
Take the Washington Post‘s Dan Balz, who has a piece (4/23/13) about how Bush is being viewed more favorably these days. “Contemporary judgments of Bush’s presidency have been harsh,” Balz wrote, “But Bush will return to public view at a moment when some parts of his record are being viewed more charitably.” That, of course, depends on who’s doing the looking.
The library’s opening is “likely to trigger fresh public debate about his eight fateful years in office,” according to Balz—who then proceeds to get quotes from Bush friends and associates. Balz quotes Karen Hughes and Karl Rove, close advisers to Bush; he talks to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair; the president of the George W. Bush Foundation, Mark Langdale; and former Bush chief of staff Joshua Bolten.
For balance, perhaps, came an assessment from Maya MacGuineas, a former McCain campaign adviser in 2000, who Balz reports “said the country would be happy to have the deficit levels of Bush’s presidency, but she declined to praise his overall record.”
Balz quotes a few historians, who had little to say about Bush’s record. (This brings to mind an op-ed the Post published over the weekend, which slammed historians for being too “partisan” in their critiques of the Bush presidency.)
If Bush’s library is “likely to trigger fresh public debate” about his presidency, it’s apparently not going to happen in Dan Balz’s article.
Nor are you likely to see much of it from Ron Fournier, who covered the Bush White House for the Associated Press and now writes for National Journal. Fournier’s piece (4/22/13), “Go Ahead, Admit It: George W. Bush Is a Good Man.”
The article opens with a classic anecdote:
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer walked into the media cabin of Air Force One on May 24, 2002, and dropped identical envelopes in the laps of two reporters, myself and Steve Holland of Reuters. Inside each was a manila card—marked by a small presidential seal and, in a simple font, “THE PRESIDENT.”
Handwritten in the tight script of President George W. Bush, both notes said essentially the same thing: “Thank you for the respect you showed for the office of the President, and, therefore, the respect you showed for our country.”
What had we done? Not much, really. An hour earlier, at a rare outdoor news conference in Germany, Steve and I decided to abide by the U.S. media tradition of rising from our seats when the president entered our presence. The snickering German press corps remained seated. “What a contrast!” Bush wrote. “What class.”
Fournier goes on to note “the essential humanity and decency of our presidents,” and offers up the belief that Bush
did not thank us for respecting him. He knew it wasn’t about George W. Bush. He was touched instead by the small measure of respect we showed “for our country.”
Uh huh, sure.
This wasn’t the only time Fournier exchanged pleasantries with the Bush White House. As we noted in Extra! (9/08), a congressional report on the Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch stories unearthed some email messages between Fournier and Karl Rove:
As Talking Points Memo pointed out (7/14/08), the report quoted an email exchange about Tillman between Karl Rove and Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier, under the subject line “H-E-R-O.” In response to an email from Fournier, Rove asked, “How does our country continue to produce men and women like this?” To which Fournier replied: “The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight.”
If the journalists who were far too generous in their coverage of Bush’s presidency are the same ones writing about how that presidency should be viewed now, he’s in safe hands.
Freddie deBoer produced an illustrated version of Ron Fournier’s article: http://lhote.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-class.html
Wasn’t this the same person that made ‘public records’ restricted data, as in all of his records as Governor and President? And was he one of the folks who consistently cut the funding for all libraries around America.
* Cut $39 million from federal spending on libraries.
* Proposed elimination of the “Reading Is Fundamental” program, which gives free books to poor children
And now he builds the ‘biggest presidential library of all time’
Whatever happened to journalistic balance? Even tit for tat, there are always two sides journalism would be an improvement over this…
That Fournier sounds like a smarmy buffoon. Too bad the country is full of them, with a whole aspiring class right behind them! So gross and he is oblivious and starts off and tells the tale, at least I chuckled out loud!
And the slavishness of being adults that someone dares to just drop something in your lap. New meaning to the term “lapdog”!
PS, the headline of this piece is wrong, Bush doesn’t have friends, those were all business associates and or his Directors.
Wow–this Fournier guy is a world-class knave and toady.
“rehabilitation of the former president’s image” — ably reinforced by the current occupant of the White House.
The Fournier anecdote is quite revealing. I suspect in Europe, and even in Canada, media and others are less likely to fawn over the Bushies, Clinton and even Carter by calling them “Mr. President.” Unless the U.S. has a president-for-life system we didn’t know about …
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I wrote to Ron Fournier to ask him why the AP did not report the Bush family’s grisly conflict of interest: George W. sending American soldiers to spill their blood while the Bush family was invested in the Carlyle Group (profiting from war). Fournier told me then (in 2003) that he had never heard of the Carlyle Group. Fournier was at that time the WH correspondent for AP. I did not believe him then, and I don’t believe him now.
I have lost all respect for the National Journal. A genocidal war criminal is not a good man. Also, why didn’t the publication fact check the article? Bush was never a president. He illegally occupied the White House due to two stolen elections.
It seems that was the ONLY compliment anyone could pay, to the Boy King, so they paid it in spades, so as not to point up the compliments they COULDN’T pay him.
So now the story is that Bush was just a man, and as such, could not be expected to be MORE than that (expecting more than that from Barack Obama, as the Reich Wing Press continually does, is not mentioned in this context).
Well I DO expect my President to be MORE than “just a good man.” I expect my President to DESERVE the POWER he has, and act for the good of the country in all situations.
I do NOT expect my President to be swayed by a klatch of “Aids” to do things that DAMAGE my country.
George W Bush did that. He MESSED UP so badly that, for his performance in office, the only defense offered was that he was a “good man” — and therefore can’t be held accountable for his official actions.
NONE of the speakers that day defended his actions — they all said he was a “good man,” and “did his best.” Which is NOT a defense — he told us when he ran, that he was up to the job, didn’t he?
That means he LIED to us (again), and now he wants us to let him weasel out of it.
Not much of a change in the corporate newsmedia point of view–still far removed from reality.
Bush’s record is so bad it defies credulity. Both foreign and domestic policy were horrible. This “presidency” was so alarmingly incompetent; I’m beginning to think it was designed to be as terrible as they could make it. I had done my homework on Bush and expected it to be very bad – but it went far beyond what I fathomed might take place. Eight years of egregious/reckless moral turpitude.
Although i did not like Bush(for constitutional reasons)the game of the left was as obvious as James Carville admitting that moments after Bush was elected he and his “friends” started a campaign with a servient press to destroy his every action.Even Hilary admitted it was successful and will damage every president.But this is the left.Politics of destruction.And yes it works on sheeple for a time.Then as it fades the most obvious thing is the lying duplicity of the left.Bush was bad and a thousand times better that this not very bright socialist dabbling amateur we now have in office.With Obama …arguably the worst president ever- you see nothing, as Sgt Shultz would say.I feel you are completely radicalized to progressive liberal claptrap.And so your views are worthless.
And Daniel ..who gave you that homework?Obviously someone teaching without a degree.Compare every known factor bush to obama and it is a downhill obama nightmare.Your only answer was ,and is….its all bushes fault.One word ..HEALTHCARE.Prices shooting through the roof.Less service.!00% Obamas screw up.
By far the worst president in U.S. history.
Great.A library named after a near illiterate imbecile.