The Republican Attempt Of Erasing The Memoring Of GWB
But at the Republican convention, the most recent Republican president, George W. Bush was gone, just gone. Not only wasn't he there, but as far as I know, no one mentioned him and his presidency.
This could be interpreted in both a negative and positive way. The negative way is that this is an attempt to "photoshop" history in the same manner that Joseph Stalin did with his most important rival Leon Trotsky, manipulatig photos and documents to create the impression that Trotsky never existed, or at least wasn't active within the Bolshevik movement. After all, Bush's record was pretty bad, so associating yourself with that is associating yourself with failure.
The positive way is that the Republicans have sincerely realized that Bush's policies, particularly his spending policies were wrong, and that he erred in spending too much, and that they therefore feel the need to disassociate themselves from him.
Which of these explanations is then the correct one? I'm not sure, but it might be a bit of both, but probably more of the former. If it had been the latter one would think that they at least briefly admit that they made mistakes in the past and put most of the blame for that on Bush. Their failure to do so raises the suspicion that they're not really serious about their professed opposition to big government, and that it's just a retorical weapon against Obama, and that they will revert to embracing big government if they regain power.