• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

George HW Bush dead at age 94

vchimpanzee said:
I was going to respond to someone here who made a similar mistake. It's probably a good idea to point it out so people won't say "GW".
You meant GHW, not GW, right?
Click to expand...

When George H.W. Bush was vice president and president, he was referred to in the media and by the public as George Bush, never George H.W. Bush. When his son, who was known as George W. Bush even as governor of Texas, ran for and won the presidency, he ran as, and was known by all as, George W. Bush, never George Bush. So why not just continue to refer to the late 41st present as George Bush and the living 43rd as George W. Bush instead of saddling both men with a W that causes people to wonder which one is being referred to?
 
CTListener said:
When George H.W. Bush was vice president and president, he was referred to in the media and by the public as George Bush, never George H.W. Bush. When his son, who was known as George W. Bush even as governor of Texas, ran for and won the presidency, he ran as, and was known by all as, George W. Bush, never George Bush. So why not just continue to refer to the late 41st present as George Bush and the living 43rd as George W. Bush instead of saddling both men with a W that causes people to wonder which one is being referred to?
Click to expand...

I totally agree. The purists like to call out folks who don't get it right, but it is somewhat confusing. I agree, 41 and 43 are the best designations.
 
seatownmedia said:
I totally agree. The purists like to call out folks who don't get it right, but it is somewhat confusing. I agree, 41 and 43 are the best designations.
Click to expand...

You're not agreeing with me! You're proposing a third solution. Sorry, I'm not a fan of referring to people by number unless I'm a referee telling the scorekeeper or the fans who just committed a foul. Besides, when I think of "16" and "32," for example, I think first of Joe Montana and O.J. Simpson, not Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. (And I wonder what Bob Gibson thinks of people calling the current president by his number.) I just want to go back to "George Bush" and "George W. Bush," which is what we called them when they were in office.

By the way, I noticed while looking at an Instagram screen grab of George Bush's service dog, Sully, near his casket that the dog's Instagram name is "sullyhwbush." I suppose this will set things up for "sullywbush" should W. need one in his later years.
 
Last edited:
CTListener said:
When George H.W. Bush was vice president and president, he was referred to in the media and by the public as George Bush, never George H.W. Bush. When his son, who was known as George W. Bush even as governor of Texas, ran for and won the presidency, he ran as, and was known by all as, George W. Bush, never George Bush. So why not just continue to refer to the late 41st present as George Bush and the living 43rd as George W. Bush instead of saddling both men with a W that causes people to wonder which one is being referred to?
Click to expand...
Not confusing at all to me. When my parents went to Kennebunkport, they brought me back a t-shirt saying something to the effect of "Kennebunkport, home of George W Bush." The year? 1993.
 
firepoint525 said:
Not confusing at all to me. When my parents went to Kennebunkport, they brought me back a t-shirt saying something to the effect of "Kennebunkport, home of George W Bush." The year? 1993.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that someone was printing T-shirts in 1993 proclaiming Kennebunkport, the summer home of George Bush -- the 41st president, the man who died Friday, the man most now call George H.W. Bush -- as the home of his son, George W. Bush, who wasn't even governor of Texas yet? Color me even MORE confused!

To me, there has never been confusion. Say "George Bush" and I think of Read My Lips, Points of Light, the Iraq War. Say "George W. Bush" and I think of 9/11, election controversy, the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. I can't imagine ever confusing the two. But maybe the distinction is now needed for those who weren't around during the presidency of the first Bush.
 
Last edited:
CTListener said:
To me, there has never been confusion. Say "George Bush" and I think of Read My Lips, Points of Light, the Iraq War. Say "George W. Bush" and I think of 9/11, election controversy, the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. I can't imagine ever confusing the two. But maybe the distinction is now needed for those who weren't around during the presidency of the first Bush.
Click to expand...

Some confusion persists: It was the elder Bush, not Dubya, who nominated Clarence Thomas.
 
CTListener said:
So you're saying that someone was printing T-shirts in 1993 proclaiming Kennebunkport, the summer home of George Bush -- the 41st president, the man who died Friday, the man most now call George H.W. Bush -- as the home of his son, George W. Bush, who wasn't even governor of Texas yet? Color me even MORE confused!
Click to expand...
Come to think of it, that shirt did indeed identify him as the "41st president." W hadn't even been elected governor of Texas yet at that time.
To me, there has never been confusion. Say "George Bush" and I think of Read My Lips, Points of Light, the Iraq War. Say "George W. Bush" and I think of 9/11, election controversy, the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. I can't imagine ever confusing the two. But maybe the distinction is now needed for those who weren't around during the presidency of the first Bush.
Click to expand...
As others here have said, it was George H.W. Bush who appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. I take your point about "George Bush" as opposed to "George W. Bush," but that train has really already left the station. I'm watching the memorial right now.

I am trying to draw a comparison to "John Adams" and "John Quincy Adams," but then I realized that more time had passed between the two of them than between the two Bushes.
 
landtuna said:
Amid all this flowery reminiscing through rose colored glasses I'd like to point out all wasn't butterflies and unicorns during the reign of GHWB. As you read this please remember I am not criticizing the man but rather his performance as president.

GHWB is given kudos for his dropping out of college and joining the navy to go fight in WWII. While this is certainly admirable he was but one of millions of men and women who did the very same thing. He is also given maximum kudos for military heroism but, in fact, he could not save his crew. He was undoubtedly heroic in his choice of military roles but no more or less than a hundred thousand other soldiers. Unlike the others however, they were not transported to lie in state by a nation whose citizens are not old enough to remember the war and have only their families to remember their sacrifice.

In addition to his many years of gubmint service and 8 years as Reagan's VP he apparently didn't learn much about campaigning or public commentary. Although a "nice guy" (as was his president) he was a bit less than a great president. His campaign foibles led to a single term and the military bailed out his legacy as a commander in chief thanks to their accomplishments in the Middle East. It was an expected victory by an overwhelmingly superior military force.

He apparently didn't provide his sons with much introspect in politics because one was a caretaker and the other was a disaster in the identical office. And, although we will never know in our lifetimes, he most likely had a significant hand in the illegal election of GWB. It is good he lived to see the results of that error.

He was born into a charmed life and had every possible advantage that a man of his time could ask for. And he took advantage of virtually all of them. Still, when he reached his pinnacle he was found lacking personally and in his judgement of close friends and advisors.

The presidential bar for presidents hasn't been very high since 1950 and given that comparison GHWB scores reasonably well. But given a wider field to compare to he comes up well short of "great". He was, at best, an average president and unworthy of the over the top adulation the media is guilty of producing.
Click to expand...

But even if you didn't agree with them, either Bush was a better president than the current one.
 
anotherguy said:
But even if you didn't agree with them, either Bush was a better president than the current one.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get into a discussion of politics as I think everybody here already knows how I feel about Trump. The purpose of my post was simply to object to the fawning coverage of GHWB as if he was the second coming of Abe Lincoln. He was obviously a good person but that doesn't necessarily make him a good president.

On another semi-related note, Jimmy Carter is sure looking good at 94. He just might outlast everybody else.
 
And preaching every Sunday! I hope Carter is still building homes at 100.
The funeral was very good, IMO. Very touching to see Bush 43 breaking down at the end of the eulogy. Bush 41 was a family man. He cared about Barbara, George W. and the rest of the family, equally as his job as VP and President. And his marriage to Barbara was the classic love story. Now he's going to Texas, to be with Barbara in forever peace next to each other.
ABC and NBC wrapped up coverage around 10:45 PT. CBS wrapped up at 11AM PT and we got the 11/25/2014 Y&R (classic episode) with a bunch of PSAs instead of commercials. I know CBS feeds PSA-only soaps when they have special reports that go overtime. The total eclipse in 2017 was another example, and several Obama press conferences in his presidency...
 
landtuna said:
I'm not going to get into a discussion of politics as I think everybody here already knows how I feel about Trump. The purpose of my post was simply to object to the fawning coverage of GHWB as if he was the second coming of Abe Lincoln. He was obviously a good person but that doesn't necessarily make him a good president.
Click to expand...

What strikes me about that is the hypocrisy of a media that would fawn over Bush in death. They sure weren't too kind to him during his Presidency.

I guess it's just considered the kind and decent thing to do. Will be interesting to see how they behave someday at Trump's funeral.
 
FreddyE1977 said:
What strikes me about that is the hypocrisy of a media that would fawn over Bush in death. They sure weren't too kind to him during his Presidency.

I guess it's just considered the kind and decent thing to do.
Click to expand...
Same thing happened with Reagan. I do not remember either man being as great as they said after each man died.

I recorded an hour of today's event and happened to be around a TV for two of the speeches, one of which made people laugh a lot. yes, "Read my lips, no new taxes" was mentioned. But the speaker made it sound like it was something that had to be done to accomplish a lot. One of these days I'll get around to watching what I recorded.
 
firepoint525 said:
Come to think of it, that shirt did indeed identify him as the "41st president." W hadn't even been elected governor of Texas yet at that time.As others here have said, it was George H.W. Bush who appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. I take your point about "George Bush" as opposed to "George W. Bush," but that train has really already left the station. I'm watching the memorial right now.

I am trying to draw a comparison to "John Adams" and "John Quincy Adams," but then I realized that more time had passed between the two of them than between the two Bushes.
Click to expand...

It looks like John Adams didn't even have a middle name, so other than John Adams Sr., which would have been technically incorrect, there was nothing else people of JQA's day could call JA.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom