It concerned blog posts that Judge Bush made under a pseudonym on his wife's website, including pieces quoting the scandal rag World News Daily that dealt with Barack Obama being born in Kenya. If you'd like to see the personification of a deer caught in the headlights, you only need watch the nominee. Most notable to me is when he says a couple of times how he wrote some things back then that he would phrase differently today.
I'll bet he would. And while that phrase sounds contrite, it actually begs the follow-up question -- Do you regret what you wrote back then because you know it's egregiously wrong, racist and offensive, and if so, can you please explain in your own words specifically what you find so horribly wrong about it today that you didn't then? Or do you regret it because it has come to the light of day and you are forced to face your own words that you'd hoped would not be so public?
As apology explanations go, from my position as co-founder with Nell Minow of the Apology Analysis Center, Mr. Bush would get a D. He's not getting a lower grade, since at least he didn't defend what he wrote. And also because I want to leave some wiggle room in case things get worse...
It should be noted that Republicans on the committee were troubled, as well. NPR reports that Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said bluntly, "Mr. Bush, I’ve read your blogs. “I’m not impressed.”