Yes, I said that Bush lost to the duo.
Old Bush should be regarded for what he was and is best remembered as "Reagan's mistake". Eisenhower reflected that Earl Warren was his great mistake, Brennen #2. But at the time it was imperative that Reagan heal the party by bringing Bush along for the ride and you had the rumor-mongers like Walter Cronkite giving that failed former unelected prez, feckless Ford, a "co-presidency". Reagan had to get ahead of the distortionist media curve before they turned his nomination into a circus.
Most economists attribute "his stunning success" and his tax increase with causing the two quarter respite from the Reagan Boom. Bush's Rasputin, Darmen, really did him in and the willing media rewarded his apostasy by hammering him on all sides. Yet old Bush incredibly added fuel to that fire, I seem to remember him mocking his base, saying "read my hips".
Bush never had a reason for being president - the mediocre ones tend not to - and it showed, especially when he tried to run on his own. Remember, before Reagan, Bush had two failed Senate campaigns, couldn't win statewide in Texas, losing even the primary to Reagan. Nixon, who saw Reagan as a rival larger than his contemporaries, regarded Bush as one of those Republicans of no particular ability that you had to give a job to.
Sure, Bush suffered in comparison with his predecessor, anyone would have, Reagan casts a giant shadow. But when Bush ran on his own record in 1992 he looked tired and old, like he really didn't need the job, that it was merely "noblesse oblige". Remember him checking his watch during the debates?
And people seem to forget that Bush really couldn't speak English in a normal way, he had that bizarre syntax. He never really connected. A terrible, terrible waste. |
