Please tell me this isn’t true: George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton will “oversee the National Institute for Civil Discourse in Arizona, sparked by the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.”

I just want to know which one is Don Quixote and which is Sancho Panza. But don’t get me wrong: Civility is a good thing. But in lending his name to this dubious endeavor George H. W. Bush, a gentleman with a pleasing personality whose civility is beyond doubt, shows yet again that he can still be duped by wily liberals: apparently, the former president is such a gentleman that he doesn’t realize that the civility crusade has nothing to do with civility and everything to do with silencing one side of the debate.

Could somebody please start a National Institute for Civil Discourse inspired by the disgraceful way Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is being portrayed by demonstrators? I thought not. As for the Bill and George institute, if I find out that tax money is being used for this silly project, I am going to call it hush-hush money.

Kevin Williamson on The Corner is brutal:

What’s so civil about the red-faced, rage-filled Bill Clinton? The guy tried to blame Oklahoma City on Rush Limbaugh. Using both the bully pulpit and his proxies, he constantly implied that his critics were either racists, sexual deviants, corrupt, or all three. His minions brought us such gems of civil discourse as: “Drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, and you never know what you’ll find.” …

That GHW Bush is willing to lend his name and credibility to such an exercise illustrates why the kind of prep-school Republicanism he stands for is dead and unmourned.

I have a soft spot for George H. W. Still, “Poppy” ought to at least ask: Where were the calls for civility when former President George W. Bush was being savaged?