Nice edit.

Goodnight, Princess

  I don't know who Pat Buchanon is, but I'm quite familiar with Pat Buchanan. Bush was at 79% approval after the 1st Gulf War.  Who dared run against him?  Ron Paul dropped out before the primaries even began.  That left crazy David Duke who ran as a Republican, (In 1988 he ran as a democrat) and "I run for President every year" Harold Stassen.  Oh yeah.  And there was one other guy.  Pat Buchanan.

  It's not as simple as Buchanan and Gingrich destroyed Bush.  Revisionist history?  I think not.  Gingrich was a one trick pony on one vote.  Buchanan was a journalist turned politician who was a thorn in the side.  Clinton had the same problem with his opposition early on.  That's what happens in primaries.  More hurtful to Bush was what the democrats did to him (as I have already stated and you label as revisionist) and the most destructive element which neither of us have bothered to touch on.  I will do so shortly.  But first  we'll take a look at the 1992 democratic field.

  Bush was so strong none of the big shots in the party bothered to run.  My short list of democrats who chose to sit this one out include Lloyd Bentsen, Bill Bradley, Mario Cuomo, Tom Foley, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Sam Nunn, Jay Rockefeller, Jackson, McGovern, Mitchell, Moynihan, Richards, Robb, Schroeder and others.  Who the hell did run?  Hummmm….Kerney, Harkin, Tsongas and McCarthy.  OH yeah, and one other guy.  Clinton.  Billy boy didn't win ANY of the early primaries and only showed up on the 3rd and 7th when he won super tuesday.  His populist demeanor finally gained traction against his lackluster opponents. (Who were by the way, bashing him in the primaries for the Jennifer Flowers incident)

  So why did Bush go with the tax increase?  Well…the economy was in a slight recession.  Bush has since said he should have rode it out but other factors long since forgotten were in place at that time.  Who controlled the Senate?  Who controlled the House?  It wasn't the Republicans.  There was something in place called the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act which called for a balanced budget.  Had Bush done nothing there would have been mandatory across the board cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Defense.  Bush wasn't willing to go there.  Gingrich was. The democrats weren't.  Two against one.  So what happened?

  Bush proposed a 5% or 5 cent increase (I forget which one) on gasoline and perhaps an increase on tobacco and alcohol.  He thought he had enough support from the Republicans to get it passed.  Enter Gingrich and the House democrats.  Gingrich got over 100 Republicans to vote against it and the liberal democrats voted against it because they said it was too heavy a tax on poor people.  Disaster!  The government shutdown over the Columbus Day weekend and all hell broke loose.  Bush came back over the weekend with a 3% tax increase on the richest Americans and modified other aspects of the new tax and was able to pass it.  That was it.

  Bush still had majority support.  Buchanan bashed Bush no harder than Clintons opponents bashed him. Gingrich supported Bush the rest of the way. Eventually it won Gingrich the House leadership and lead to Republican control of the House for the first time in 40 years.

  That's all interesting but that's not why Bush lost the election.  Bill Clinton won with less than 50% of the vote.  First time since Abe Lincoln unless Teddy and the Bull Moose party screwed up a majority vote earlier.  I'd have to look that one up.  Point is, it wan't the tax increase that killed Bush, although it didn't help.  It wasn't Buchanan or Gingrich.  It wasn't Clinton or the democrats.

  THE ANSWER:  Ross Perot.

  Thanks for playing.  Try again later.

Posted by DougOut on 9/24/2014 10:16:00 PM (view original):
  I remember Zell Miller. Democrat. The public didn't try to kick him out.  His own party did.  The democrats did.  I guess they didn't like his style of compromise.  Then there was that guy who ran for Vice-President.  What was his name?  The Jew Boy bronx hated so much.  I remember.  Joe Lieberman.  Ran with Gore.  Yeah.  One year he's Vice-Presidential material and two years later he's being run out of the Party because he compromised with the other party.  I'm confused now.  How does this compromise work?

  I know how it works.  It's a one way compromise with the democrats and the liberal democrat media.  They get their way or it's not a compromise.  And when the Republicans compromise, the democrats beat them over the head with it.  Case in point:

  Bush #1:  Read my lips…no new taxes. So he goes into Iraq and his numbers are at an all time high but he loses the election because the democrats fool the American people with NO NEW TAXES and IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID.  Are you getting this?  The economy suffered because Bush #1 did a good thing and saved a nation from an aggressor.  The democrats then told him he must raise taxes in order to save the economy.  He did the right thing and rose short term rates to pay for the war.  HE REACHED ACROSS THE AISLE. HE COMPROMISED.  Then the democrats bashed his head in for reaching across the aisle and saving the economy and keeping world peace. And some of you idiots voted for Clinton.

  So it goes in a circle.  Clinton runs us down but we're saved by the Republican House but Clinton ignores Bin Laden and Bush #2 saves us and the democrats do the same thing all over again.  

  First they back him then they slam him.  Over 5 years.  All for politics. First the House. Then the Senate and the Presidency. They did't care about security or the Middle East.  It's all politics with them.  POWER. CONTROL. MONEY. 

  And don't be fooled.  That $174,000 congressman's salary comes out to 1.2 million and the Senate gets a cool 3.2 million a year. That's why there are 364 House bills sitting on Harry Reids desk that will never see the light of day.  Don't tell me about compromise.  There is no compromise with the demo-nazis and the bought and paid for republicans. THAT'S WHY THERE IS A TEA PARTY.

  And they are better and honest and next door quality than the political scientists from a liberal think tank that fly in unison like the brainless birds they are. A flock of birdbrains flying in unison reading the same imperfect books from a flawed ideology while ignoring the one thing that made them successful in the first place. And so there is no compromise. Only a berating down of tried and true philosophy. No quarter given. A stain on your brand if you don't comply. Where is the compromise?

So, was it Ross Perot that cost Bush the election like you said in your second post or was it the Democrats who bashed his head in like you said in your first?

And that sounds eerily similar to how Gore lost to bush in 2000.


Ralph Nader.

...and now the only jobs that are available are chicken plucker jobs!
































...and they are hiring only illegals to do it.

DEAR TAINT: There is no difference.  It is a seamless thread.  Tightly wound.  1 is 2 is 1.  Seamless.  Interwoven.  One. 

Thanks for playing. 

Try again later.

O

  I forgive you.

  Let us use this moment in time to work together as a team.  Together we can destroy the hierarchy of crony capitalism and restore the middle class to its proper place.  That platform from which all can attain or leap from in their lifetime.  A growing economy in which all who participate and benefit from can return in their own small way to the greater good.  Through their tithe and good givings.  Into the community in which they live.  Without Big Government over site or the hand of Washington upon us.  Free peoples able to pursue happiness and good fortune on the way to a greater good for all.  

  Whatdya say?

I'm with ya.  Cheers.  I really am too.

  Cool!

  Now all we gotta do is get rid of all the republitards and demonazis that think Washington is their home instead of their office. 

  They rent office space from us at a pretty penny.  We're paying but they're not playing.  Some of them think it's a career.  I got news for them.  It's a temp job at best.  

  If you shuffle the deck often enough,  you'll end up with a fair hand.