David Cop-A-Feel: I don't like Trump and I voted for Hillary

The same guy who served as Ronald Reagan's loyal deputy during the triumph of Reaganomics and the defeat of communism actually cast a vote to make Hillary Clinton president, huh? Is this a real change of heart? Was he never anything more than an opportunist? Or is Donald Trump just that objectionable? Keep in mind that Papa Bush didn't write the book. He was interviewed for it by author Mark Undergrove, whose premise seems to be that the Bushes represent the last of a dying breed of Republicans and that Trump represents the first of whatever he is. If true, you can see why the Bushes might feel salty about it, and apparently both of them do - although W. is more cirumspect and allowed that he simply left his presidential ballot blank rather than voting for the most horrible woman on the face of the Earth. I guess that's something.

To the extent they're upset about how Trump's presidency may set back their free trade and immigration priorities, I'd say those priorities might have yielded more fruit as part of a better overall economic plan. But here we are:

Former President George H.W. Bush says he is not too excited about "blowhard" President Trump and confirmed in a new book that he voted for Hillary Clinton. “I don’t like him,” Bush, 93, says in the book, according to a review by The New York Times. “I don’t know much about him, but I know he’s a blowhard. And I’m not too excited about him being a leader.” In the book, titled “The Last Republicans,” the 41st president also revealed that he voted for Trump’s Democrat rival Clinton in the 2016 White House race. The new book, by author Mark K. Undegrove, consists mostly of interviews looking back at the Republican Party over the past few decades and explores the connection between the elder Bush and his son, former President George W. Bush. The younger Bush told Undegrove that he voted for “none of the above.”

---

The father and son each raise concerns that Trump has essentially blown up the GOP to the extent that the New York businessman and first-time politician could be the party’s last president for a long while, according to The Times review. They also suggest that Trump has wrecked their longtime efforts to continue to build a political party committed to free trade and immigration and the continuation of United States as a world leader in democracy.

I know a lot of people put everyone named Bush in the same bag with the labels of globalist, squish, establishment or whatever else. I've never really seen them that way. If anything, it seemed to me that 43 learned a lot from the timidness of 41 and put those lessons to good use as president. W was more aggressive about seeking tax cuts and was actually pretty bold in advocating partial privatization of Social Security. He tried hard to get energy policy back on track but he was stuck with a recalcitrant Republican Congress that was afraid to get on board. Both spent too much, although the deficit had almost disppeared by the sixth year of W's presidency. It was when Democrats took back Congress that it started rising again. And obviously to the extent it might have been possible to foresee the mortgage market meltdown, he failed to foresee it. What both seem not to understand, though, is that Trump's rise is the direct result of the failure of their way of doing business. Both Bushes thought it was better to try to work with the swamp than to go to war against it, thinking maybe the result would be some sort of policy victory along the way. It was never enough to forestall the nation's march toward fiscal insolvency nor the slowdown in growth that's resulted from the big-government policies that 43 fought too half-heartedly, and 41 not at all.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

He's getting awfully old, and it sounds like his brain is starting to wander as much as his hands

I can understand a former president believing Trump has the wrong comportment for the job, and disliking the idea that such a bull in a china shop is now occupying the office you believe you held with such dignity. I can also understand not liking Trump's attacks on Jeb Bush or his attacks on the Iraq War, which I believe are as unwarranted as everyone else's attack on it. But here's what really matters: In 1988 or in 2000, a Bush-like president might have been able to take on the worst instincts of Washington and win the victories that would have put the nation on a better path. Neither man really seemed to want to do so sufficient to make a difference, and when the voters were presented with their choices in 2016, those on the Republican side didn't trust any of the traditionalist candidates to do so. That's why they elected the guy with the wrecking ball personality. When H.W. was giving in on the tax increase to make George Mitchell and Thomas Foley happy, maybe he could have foreseen the long-term consequences of that cave. He didn't, or he didn't care. Either way, the problems we face today are far more urgent as a result. And even if you object to Trump's approach or his personality for a whole host of legitimate reasons, how do you then turn around and vote for Hillary, knowing full well what she's like? At least 43 refrained from that absurdity. As for 41? All we can say is that he's getting awfully old, and it sounds like his brain is starting to wander as much as his hands.