Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

George and Laura Bush, Plus the Clintons, to Attend Trump’s Inauguration

Politics aside, inaugurals are a time to show that our nation can peaceably transfer power from one administration to the next.

By Comments

Former President George W. Bush, former first lady Laura Bush, and former President Bill Clinton at the opening ceremony of the George W. Bush Presidential Center in 2013, in Dallas. All three will be at Donald Trump's inauguration later this month.
Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

A dance squad from Texas State University, a marching band at a historically black college, and New York City’s Radio City Musical Hall Rockettes have all been embroiled in controversies about whether they should perform during Republican Donald Trump’s inaugural because of the divisive, smash-mouth nature of his campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton.

But inaugurals are about more than the person taking the Oath of Office. They symbolize that the United States can peacefully hand off power from one administration to another without the government collapsing.

That was affirmed today as former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, announced that they will attend the inauguration on January 20. “They are pleased to be able to witness the peaceful transfer of power—a hallmark of American democracy—and swearing-in of President Trump and Vice President Pence.”

A short time later, Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton also announced they will attend the event at the Capitol. Former President Jimmy Carter had previously announced he would attend. Former President George H.W. Bush declined for health reasons.

None of these people are Trump fans. The Bushes announced last fall that they would skip voting in the presidential contest. Carter last summer denounced Trump as someone who “seems to reject the most important moral and ethical principles on which our nation was founded.” As for the Clintons, some bitter pills just have to be swallowed “out of a sense of duty and respect for the American democratic process.”

 

 

 

 

 

Related Content

  • WUSRPH

    It is nice to see that they all understand the importance of the Miracle of 1800—the peaceful transfer of power. It is doubtful that Trump and his supporters would have had he lost.

    • WUSRPH

      Let’s just hope that Trump remembers which day it is and shows up. He continues to have problems with his memory….Now he is complaining that a meeting always scheduled for Friday has been delayed till Friday, as if it was originally set for an earlier day. Either he cannot remember, his staff did not tell him right or he is deliberately trying to make it appear that the intelligence folks don’t have the evidence on the Russians they say they do. I would prefer to think that it is the latter…..because a president who cannot remember things from day-to-day might be very dangerous. We now know that Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s while he was president. That’s why he could not remember any of that stuff around the Irangate scandal including the selling arms to a terrorist nation which he said we would never do. I’d hate to repeat that experience.

  • roadgeek

    This is a class act by all the former presidents and their wives. It’s going to be especially hard for Hillary Clinton, but I admire her for going.

    • Madrigalian

      She’s just trying to put on a good show in hopes Trump won’t seek an indictment against her.

      • roadgeek

        I doubt this will help, one way or the other.

  • BCinBCS

    From Borowitz over at the New Yorker:

    WASHINGTON — Sixty-four unskilled workers will report to new jobs in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday as part of a federal jobs program that provides employment for people unable to find productive work elsewhere.

    The new hires, who have no talents or abilities that would make them employable in most workplaces, will be earning a first-year salary of $174,000.

    • Tejasguitarman

      I say we drain that impending swamp

      • BCinBCS
        • Tejasguitarman

          Yeah, I wouldn’t put it past ’em.

          • BCinBCS

            “Wouldn’t put it past ’em”?…One of the Republicans first move since coming back after the election and the holidays was to to secretly vote to put the Office of Congressional Ethics under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee, essentially eliminating it as an effective watch dog.

            The committee, formed by Democrats in 2008 after the Jack Abramoff Congressional bribery scandal, has the freedom to independently pursue allegations (even anonymous allegations) and then publicly recommend further action to the House Ethics Committee.

            After the deal was done, a huge public outcry caused the Republicans to reverse their decision.

            Eliminating the office would have guaranteed that the swamp would have never been drained.

  • John Bernard Books

    They will be going to Prez Trump’s inauguration….dems will be attending the other award ceremony….
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0cf45d7ffe2de1d84bfed2bf2af5de03f29a7d9801fbdf95e8490b1d1e3f33f5.jpg

  • José

    Remember, if you don’t have the patience or the stomach to watch the ceremony live on TV you can just read the inauguration address on Twitter.

    • Tejasguitarman

      now that’s funny!

  • BCinBCS

    The flop sweat is beginning to appear on Republican legislators as the time approaches for them to make decisions about Obamacare. Some want to have the budget resolution (that contains the parameters that the budget bill will mandate) passed by the inauguration while other Republicans want to drag their feet on “repeal and delay”.

    “Repeal and delay”? Yea, that’s what “repeal and replace” has universally become with conservatives as they realize that there is no way for to keep all of the popular components of Obamacare while eliminating the rest of the program.

    Ah, the chickens have come home to roost and it is time to pay the piper but it turns out that the Republicans are short on cash.

    • SpiritofPearl
      • BCinBCS

        Yes, I saw it about a week ago. Living in Texas, their main advise to lobby our Congresscritters is not that useful.

        I have checked for Meetups for like-minded individuals but have not found any. I will actively participate in any actions that might happen here but the extreme conservatism of where I live leaves me with little hope.

        • SpiritofPearl

          Have

  • SpiritofPearl

    They are legitimizing the inauguration of a demagogue.

    • WUSRPH

      Don’t be as bad as a Trumptarian. He would have denied Hillary’s legitimacy….We have to be better than him.

      • SpiritofPearl

        We have to resist tyranny. We are all better than Trump!

        • WUSRPH

          The man was legitimately elected. He will be he legitimate holder of the office of president UNTIL he is removed by his death, the limit on the number of terms he can serve, his removal for mental or physical unfitness, impeachment and conviction by the Congress or his defeat by the voters. The fact that he will hold the office is indeed a sad day for America. But he has to do something to justify his removal. Suspicion of his likely actions is not enough. He must actively do something. I can only hope that it never happens or if he leaves office before his term is ended, the cause that the damaged to America and the world is limited.

          • SpiritofPearl

            By attending his inauguration, they are tacitly approving of his tactics. I do not.

          • Madrigalian

            What a bunch of horse manure. Sour Grapes much?

          • SpiritofPearl

            I thought I had blocked you. I will now.

          • St. Anger

            i know, right. if clinton had won under these conditions, i’m sure madrigalian and his ilk would be totally copacetic.

          • Madrigalian

            What conditions would that be exactly?

          • WUSRPH

            You are stretching the truth by a fairly large amount when you say the Washington Post “has retracted their Russian hoax story”, In fact, that is a total Trumpism—i.e.–a lie intended to give a false impression. The retracted story deal with the possibility that the Russians had penetrated the electricity utility distribution system, NOT with anything having to do with the elections. A nice try at muddying the waters, but one that did not work.

          • Madrigalian

            WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived

            IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.

            The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid” as the Post had claimed. In addition to the editor’s note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that “the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility” and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.

            But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).

            After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.

            https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/

            Debunked and Retracted.

          • WUSRPH

            Look, you tried to play a cute one to destroy her claim that the Russia’s hacked the elections with a false statement that the WP had retracted that story….You got caught….Try again….but the utility story has nothing to do with what she was talking about and you knew it….Obfuscate all you want….but that is what happened.

          • SpiritofPearl

            I’ve blocked M. Sounds like he’s gaslighting.

          • Madrigalian

            Glad to know you’re still thinking about me sweetie.

          • Madrigalian

            You didn’t read the article did you? Both stories were retracted and WashPo distanced itself from both. WashPo IS fake news. And Texas Monthly is a leftist rag, full of leftist horsesh!t. You can keep repeating the same hyperbole all day, doesn’t make it true.

          • SpiritofPearl

            Just like they were when Obama was elected.

          • Madrigalian

            I’m really heartbroken over it too. *sniff*

          • BCinBCS
          • Madrigalian

            ^ Race Baiting Liberal ^
            Will they ever learn.

          • BCinBCS

            “Race Baiting Liberal”

            That statement is rich. Rich beyond all imagination.
            Oh, and projection, too.

          • St. Anger

            “The man was legitimately elected.”

            suuuure. if you don’t count the illegal electioneering by the FBI, the international conspiracy between trump and putin (treason), and the run of the mill vote supression conducted by republicans.

            you have a pretty low bar for a “legitimate” election.

          • WUSRPH

            It was the only election we had…..and we’ve had some bad ones in the past…but, absent some other system of choosing the president, we are stuck with it. That does not mean that we don’t have to do all we can to make future balloting more honest.

          • St. Anger

            “only election we had” not equal “legitimate election.”

            seriously, by those criteria, is there any such thing as an illegimate election? no. no there isn’t.

            your need (and those of the pundits) to avoid drawing our democracy into question ignores the obvious truth that … our democracy is in question irrespective of your apologies.

            this reminds me of my students who didn’t want to talk about the lack of equal opportunity in our society for fear of undermining our commitment to … equal opportunity.

          • WUSRPH

            I have no qualms about “drawing our democracy into question”……Nor have I ever suggested that our system is perfect….It never was….but it used to be a lot worse than it is even now…..There are also ingrained problems with any mass democracy (little “d”) .but, to perryphrase Churchill, it may not be the best system, but it is better than the others.. I tried to spend my life making it better for more people….with only a little (and often only temporary) success….But I will not moan and groan about how imperfect things are. I will continue try to make them better……meanwhile I will be accept that he won…..and work from there….I don’t like it…I would have preferred something quite different….but that is the way our imperfect system functions.

          • St. Anger

            you’re still doing it, acting like the claims on each side are equivalent.

            if there have been elections in the past that were manipulated by the fbi and russia, i’d like to hear about them.

            if there haven’t, then this isn’t just another “imperfect” election.

            it is treason, an abomination of our constituton, and completely unlike the sort of “democracy” that churchill was ambivalent about.

            there is nothing to be ambivalent about here.

          • WUSRPH

            What the Russians apparently did was try to influence public opinion….in this case involved in an election…..I’m not really familiar with previous Russian efforts—other than possibly in Henry Wallace’s campaign in 1948 where the CPUSA was heavily involved on Moscow’s behalf. BUT there are a number of other incidents in US history when a foreign power, usually Britain but France on at least one occasion, made a dedicated and direct effort to influence public opinion (and elections).
            The major occasions involving the British were their efforts before the US entered both WWI and WWII to shape US public opinion. Stories were planted in US newspapers, editors were bribed and false charges were widely spread—-all in a direct and well-financed effort to shape US policy and effect votes in our elections and in the Congress. They even involved tapping (hacking) the equivalents of e-mail of the time (international cables and the mails) and releasing their contents. Ever heard of the “Zimmerman Telegram” for example? As to the French, their minister to the US during the early days of the French revolution was so flagrant in passing out bribes, etc. to editors and reporters that the U.S. government eventually forced his recall

            (OF course the respective German governments were also involved in such efforts both in the pre-WWI and WWII but they were much less successful.

            As to the role of the FBI…J. Edgar Hoover was more than active in many elections and issues trying to shape US policy and/or defeat people. So that has happened before, too.

          • SpiritofPearl

            These

          • WUSRPH

            I guess you just won’t accept that what the Russians did, as bad as it is, is not something that new.

          • BCinBCS

            WUSRPH, if you would like to read what Putin (i.e. Russia) is doing, a very good analysis titled Putin’s Real Long Game by Molly K. McKew is at Politico. It is fairly long and in-depth but explains a lot of the “craziness” that is coming out of Russia.

            http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/putins-real-long-game-214589

          • WUSRPH

            It also hints at some of the reason for the “craziness” that is coming out of Trump Tower.

            I had a few thoughts on that the other day….They may be of interest in this regard:

            A question for your consideration:

            Has anyone seen any evidence that Trump has any underlying beliefs, ethical
            structure or philosophy that guides his behavior?

            I ask this because, after carefully examining all the information I have been to absorb on Trump, I CAN’T FIND ONE. In fact, the closest thing to a philosophy I can discern is a kind of primitive Social Darwinism that holds that the strong should will out in all things that his father was supposed to spout.

            Other than that, I see no intellectual or even emotional connection to any particular mortal/ethical constraints and, most disturbingly, no evidence that he has any sort of a philosophical basis that would lead him to believe that one political system or philosophy (such as our own concept of personal liberty) is any better than any other system.

            I think this lack of any connection to a moral/ethical structure or belief in the merits of one political philosophy over others will become more and more apparent as Trump develops his approach to dealing with other nations. What I suspect we will see is a return to the old European concept (usually rejected by the United States) of the stronger nation’s having some sort of a natural right by virtue of their power to “spheres of influence” over their weaker neighbors where their control is undisputed by other nations. Thus, we would tend to overlook actions by the strong against the weak unless we have some special reason for concern such as large investments in the area or the existence of a strong voting bloc in the US that supports one of the smaller entities.

            For example, I have repeatedly seen hints in Trump’s comments that he sees no reason why the US should be concerned with the fate of the Baltic States that lie under the shadow of Russia . As such, I suspect that, in a clear contrast to our existence policy of helping small democratic states sustain their freedoms, a Trump Administration will do little or nothing more than a mild protest if the Russians attempt to “encourage” those three states (and others along the borders of Russia) to submit to Russia’s will and
            economic and political domination . After all, they are in its “sphere”, not ours.

            The same view would apply to other areas of the world, such as the Middle East where, since Israel is the strongest country, we could stand by while it exercised its dominance over the Palestinians and perhaps even over Jordan and most of Lebanon.

            We would likely do the same in Asia where, after we had settled any grievances we might think we have against China, we could, in effect, tell Japan and Korea (and other
            nations) that, if they are not strong enough to stand up to China, that is their problem…..

            We, of course, we expect the same deference to our will in those areas of the world in which we have some sort of a vested interest or that are located within our “sphere”.

          • BCinBCS

            Comrade Trump, in the final analysis, believes only in himself. It is part and parcel of his narcissistic syndrome. That is why I agree with you on the concept of the “European (Monarch) model”. As a person of wealth, and the power that brings, he has rarely been told “No”, reinforcing his philosophy that wealth and power make him superior to others.

          • SpiritofPearl
          • WUSRPH

            Virtually everything Trump does is “unique” in America…and most of it is bad for the country..

    • Alti
  • WUSRPH

    Trump’s new SEC head: Jay Clayton

    “Clayton is currently a partner at the white-shoe Manhattan law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, where he has primarily represented major corporations in mergers, initial public offerings and compliance issues. Among his biggest clients are the e-commerce site Alibaba and the investment bank Goldman Sachs.

    He is the latest in a string of Trump administration officials with deep ties to Goldman Sachs. Others include Trump’s nominee for Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive, and Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs chief operating officer who is the incoming president’s pick to lead the National Economic Council” (From Huffington-Post)

    Before it is all over historians will be calling the Trump Administration the “Age of Goldman Sachs”. They are putting JP Morgan in its hayday to shame.

    • BCinBCS

      Apparently there are three major parties that provide the bulk America’s politicians – the Democratic party, the Republican party and Goldman Sachs.

  • Rules of Blazon

    Donald Trump is a white supremacist and a Russian puppet, and so is every single person who supports him.

    • Alti

      Lol. Dems have lost it.

    • Madrigalian

      Hyperbolic nonsense.

    • roadgeek

      Well, the Russian part really doesn’t fit in my case.

      • Rules of Blazon

        It absolutely does, if you support Trumpski. You’re nothing but a pawn in Putin’s game. Improve your lot in life and move to Russia.

  • roadgeek

    You know, President-elect Trump could cure cancer, bring peace to the Middle East and eliminate our national debt, and people would still whine and complain. How about giving him a chance?

    • SpiritofPearl

      So far he’s doing little other than tweeting from Trump Tower. Adolescent behavior that won’t change . . . But you wanted him. Now reap the whirlwind.

    • WUSRPH

      Obama brought up back from the edge of a world-wide financial collapse, presided over one of the longest periods of economic growth in history, extended health care to 20 million Americans, kept Iran from getting the bomb (or at least delayed it for 10 years) without a drop of blood being spent) hunted down Bin Laden and on and on….and people like you cursed him all the way…..That’s just the way people are….Trump should expect no better treatment.

    • dave in texas

      Yeah, like conservatives ever gave Obama even half a chance. Fer cryin’ out loud, a significant number were blaming the recession on him before he even took office. Those that weren’t blaming it on Bill Clinton, that is.

  • WUSRPH

    Well it seems Trump has leaned one lesson about how to control dissent—-insure that you only hear what you want to hear. At least that is what his alleged plan to “revamp” the nation’s intelligence agencies appears to be aimed at. He doesn’t like what the CIA has been telling folks about the involvement of his good friends Vladimir’s government in hacking the US elections…so, chop at the agency until it learns its lesson….i.e.—Tell the man what he wants to hear. There have already been hints of possible purges at the State Dept. and the Dept. of Energy and the EPA thru the attempt to get “the names” of those involved in past policies that don’t with the New Reality. It looks like that is now likely at the various intelligence agencies too.

    Of course, Trump has no experience of ability to actually judge the quality of the intelligence he is or will receive. He will have to rely on his “advisors” for that….(the old “govt,. by advisor” problem).

    It is also interesting that one of those alleged to be a drafter of these reforms is Gen. Flynn, the soon-to-be National Security Advisor. Getting some control of what the agencies tell the president will only substantially increase the power of Flynn’s job since he will likely being the man giving the spooks the “word” about what is acceptable intelligence. We saw what happened when Cheney took control of the evidence George W. received about Iraq’s “Weapons of MassDestruction” (WMDs). I’d hate to see that sorrowful lesson have to be relearned.

  • SpiritofPearl

    CIA

  • WUSRPH

    I read in an English publication yesterday that Woody Guthrie wrote a song about The Donald’s father called “Old Mr. Trump”….It talked about his alleged slum lord behavior. Has anyone seen or heard of it?

  • Madrigalian

    Two Months After Election, FBI Admits They Never Looked At DNC Email Servers

    There seems to be nothing the Democrats won’t attribute to Russian hackers supposedly interfering with the 2016 Presidential election. They want to find excuses to explain Hillary Clinton’s historic lost to President elect Donald Trump, and the media is helping them make up stories.

    Now, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has made a shocking announcement about their investigations into those same DNC email servers, which caused so many problems for Team Clinton. The FBI now admits they never looked at the server before placing blame on Russia!

    The FBI didn’t bother to conduct a forensic analysis of the servers. Wow!

    This suggests the FBI and the Obama administration already came to the conclusion that Russia was behind the hacking (or phishing) long before evidence was examined.

    Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/two-months-election-fbi-admits-never-looked-dnc-email-servers/#ixzz4UvmLn0tJ

    • BCinBCS

      The FBI didn’t bother to conduct a forensic analysis of the servers. Wow!
      This suggests the FBI and the Obama administration already came to the conclusion that Russia was behind the hacking (or phishing) long before evidence was examined.

      From The Hill:
      (emphasis is mine)

      …[T]he bureau and other agencies have relied on analysis done by the third-party security firm CrowdStrike, which investigated the breach for the DNC.

      “Crowdstrike is pretty good. There’s no reason to believe that anything that they have concluded is not accurate,” the intelligence official told BuzzFeed.

      Madrigalian, how you got from the first sentence of yours that I quoted to the second sentence (the conclusion) defies logic.

  • WUSRPH

    I thought Trump hated NAFTA…but it appears he only hates the Mexican part……Today he tweeted an attack on Toyota for planning to close a plan in CANADA and replace it with one in Mexico….I guess he just has this thing about jobs going to Mexico even if they aren’t US jobs….but then, technically, you could say that Canada is part of (North) America so they could be “American jobs”.