RIP President George H W Bush

[Grizalltheway]

How could you not like the guy?

The elder Mr. Bush was also not a fan of Mr. Trump's, according to a May 2016 interview with Mark K. Updegrove in his book, "The Last Republicans." He said that he thought Mr. Trump was driven by "a certain ego," and that he didn't "like" Mr. Trump.

"I don't know much about him, but I know he's a blowhard," Mr. Bush added. "And I'm not too excited about him being a leader."

[93henfan]

GHWB's final words: "I love U2."

[CAA Flagship]

GHWB's final words: "I love U2."

phpBB [video]

[93henfan]

GHWB's final words: "I love U2."

phpBB [video]

I had always assumed he was more of a Van Halen guy, what with all the parachuting and skirt chasing and whatnot.

[kalm]

The one I felt sorry for was Stockdale.

That was a well-intentioned but disastrous pick. All-time debate fail: a great man past his prime and completely unprepared.

All I can think of is Phil Hartman.

[JohnStOnge]

No way I'd have the guts. But I salute those who do/did. G. H. W. Bush was one of them.

phpBB [video]

phpBB [video]

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, I don't think we can ever know but I don't think it's clear at all that Perot cost Bush the 1992 Presidential election.

[Winterborn]

He was one of the few Presidents I respect. And I highly doubt there will be another one with his class in the future.

[Gil Dobie]

RIP Bush I

[GannonFan]

BTW, I don't think we can ever know but I don't think it's clear at all that Perot cost Bush the 1992 Presidential election.

People went to Perot because Bush was extremely unpopular at that time. The passage of time has made people forget that the economy was terribly in the crapper at the time and Bush, for all his great qualities, was just not that great of a leader later in his Presidency. I liked the guy, and his commitment to the country and his temperament are certainly things to be respected, but he was a Carter-like President and most of the blame for him not having a second term rest with him.

[Ibanez]

BTW, I don't think we can ever know but I don't think it's clear at all that Perot cost Bush the 1992 Presidential election.

People went to Perot because Bush was extremely unpopular at that time. The passage of time has made people forget that the economy was terribly in the crapper at the time and Bush, for all his great qualities, was just not that great of a leader later in his Presidency. I liked the guy, and his commitment to the country and his temperament are certainly things to be respected, but he was a Carter-like President and most of the blame for him not having a second term rest with him.

Carter better watch it..Bush was only a few months older.

[Gil Dobie]

BTW, I don't think we can ever know but I don't think it's clear at all that Perot cost Bush the 1992 Presidential election.

People went to Perot because Bush was extremely unpopular at that time. The passage of time has made people forget that the economy was terribly in the crapper at the time and Bush, for all his great qualities, was just not that great of a leader later in his Presidency. I liked the guy, and his commitment to the country and his temperament are certainly things to be respected, but he was a Carter-like President and most of the blame for him not having a second term rest with him.

No New Taxes, famous words to take down a Presidency.

[89Hen]

No New Taxes, famous words to take down a Presidency.

Yup. And the one before that was unspoken.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, I don't think we can ever know but I don't think it's clear at all that Perot cost Bush the 1992 Presidential election.

People went to Perot because Bush was extremely unpopular at that time. The passage of time has made people forget that the economy was terribly in the crapper at the time and Bush, for all his great qualities, was just not that great of a leader later in his Presidency. I liked the guy, and his commitment to the country and his temperament are certainly things to be respected, but he was a Carter-like President and most of the blame for him not having a second term rest with him.

As I noted earlier I think there was a worldwide economic disturbance and that the United States did relatively well. Then the recession ended nearly two years before Bill Clinton took office. I am old enough pointing to economic data showing that things were improving and just not being able to get traction.

And BTW I don't think the economy was terribly in the crapper at any time under G.H.W. Bush. There was a recession but it was a very mild one. It wasn't as bad as the one at the beginning of the Reagan Administration and it CERTAINLY wasn't as bad as the one that started near the end of the G.W. Bush administration.

Also, Perot took about as many votes from Clinton as he took from Bush. His impact was a wash. Here' is a 1992 article on the subject:

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1 ... trong.html

If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush. Of the 31 states where Mr. Perot garnered more than 20 percent, 17 were won by Mr. Clinton and 14 by Mr. Bush. A Breeze, Not a Storm

"Perot may have breathed some fresh air into the campaign, in terms of his personality, but the outcome doesn't appear to have been influenced by him at all," said David Bositis, senior research fellow at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

[css75]

People went to Perot because Bush was extremely unpopular at that time. The passage of time has made people forget that the economy was terribly in the crapper at the time and Bush, for all his great qualities, was just not that great of a leader later in his Presidency. I liked the guy, and his commitment to the country and his temperament are certainly things to be respected, but he was a Carter-like President and most of the blame for him not having a second term rest with him.

As I noted earlier I think there was a worldwide economic disturbance and that the United States did relatively well. Then the recession ended nearly two years before Bill Clinton took office. I am old enough pointing to economic data showing that things were improving and just not being able to get traction.

And BTW I don't think the economy was terribly in the crapper at any time under G.H.W. Bush. There was a recession but it was a very mild one. It wasn't as bad as the one at the beginning of the Reagan Administration and it CERTAINLY wasn't as bad as the one that started near the end of the G.W. Bush administration.

Also, Perot took about as many votes from Clinton as he took from Bush. His impact was a wash. Here' is a 1992 article on the subject:

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1 ... trong.html

If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush. Of the 31 states where Mr. Perot garnered more than 20 percent, 17 were won by Mr. Clinton and 14 by Mr. Bush. A Breeze, Not a Storm

"Perot may have breathed some fresh air into the campaign, in terms of his personality, but the outcome doesn't appear to have been influenced by him at all," said David Bositis, senior research fellow at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

Wrong, Perot had a personal grudge with Bush, he took a lot more votes from him than he did Slick Willie.

Bush economy much better than it was under Jimmah Carter and Obama.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

People went to Perot because Bush was extremely unpopular at that time. The passage of time has made people forget that the economy was terribly in the crapper at the time and Bush, for all his great qualities, was just not that great of a leader later in his Presidency. I liked the guy, and his commitment to the country and his temperament are certainly things to be respected, but he was a Carter-like President and most of the blame for him not having a second term rest with him.

As I noted earlier I think there was a worldwide economic disturbance and that the United States did relatively well. Then the recession ended nearly two years before Bill Clinton took office. I am old enough pointing to economic data showing that things were improving and just not being able to get traction.

And BTW I don't think the economy was terribly in the crapper at any time under G.H.W. Bush. There was a recession but it was a very mild one. It wasn't as bad as the one at the beginning of the Reagan Administration and it CERTAINLY wasn't as bad as the one that started near the end of the G.W. Bush administration.

Also, Perot took about as many votes from Clinton as he took from Bush. His impact was a wash. Here' is a 1992 article on the subject:

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1 ... trong.html

If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush. Of the 31 states where Mr. Perot garnered more than 20 percent, 17 were won by Mr. Clinton and 14 by Mr. Bush. A Breeze, Not a Storm

"Perot may have breathed some fresh air into the campaign, in terms of his personality, but the outcome doesn't appear to have been influenced by him at all," said David Bositis, senior research fellow at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

The economy in the crapper probably mattered it you were impacted by it or not. I was just early in college and my parents were insulated from the worse of that recession, but I knew people that lost tons in that recession and could never make it back (older, closer to retirement types). And it was worse than the one at the start of the Reagan administration simply because of what preceeded it - by the early 90's people were flush with the long string of economic growth of the '80s. That wasn't the case with the early 80's recession where we were still trying to overcome the stagflation of the Carter years and the malaise of the 70's.

[JohnStOnge]

As I noted earlier I think there was a worldwide economic disturbance and that the United States did relatively well. Then the recession ended nearly two years before Bill Clinton took office. I am old enough pointing to economic data showing that things were improving and just not being able to get traction.

And BTW I don't think the economy was terribly in the crapper at any time under G.H.W. Bush. There was a recession but it was a very mild one. It wasn't as bad as the one at the beginning of the Reagan Administration and it CERTAINLY wasn't as bad as the one that started near the end of the G.W. Bush administration.

Also, Perot took about as many votes from Clinton as he took from Bush. His impact was a wash. Here' is a 1992 article on the subject:

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1 ... trong.html

Wrong, Perot had a personal grudge with Bush, he took a lot more votes from him than he did Slick Willie.

Bush economy much better than it was under Jimmah Carter and Obama.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think we can ever know if Perot took more votes from Bush or took more votes from Clinton in absolute terms. But it's pretty clear that in percentage terms it was pretty close to 50:50 from each one. People keep going with this thing about Perot taking more votes from Bush even though there is absolutely no evidence of that and, in fact, the available evidence strongly suggests he drew very close to evenly from each.

Look, when it first happened I was mad at Perot too because my initial reaction was to think he cost Bush the election. But as the data came in it became clear he did not. Clinton would've won whether Perot was in the race or not.

I think a much bigger factor was people not realizing that an economic recovery was underway. Bush kept trying to point it out and his arguments just wouldn't take. I think people went to the polls in 1992 thinking the economy was doing poorly when it wasn't.