Bush at 91: Irritated and Invigorated by ’16 Race

NEW YORK TIMES via Breitbart ^ | OCTOBER 24,2015 | Jonathan Martin and Matt Flegenheimer writing at The New York Times:

[bimboeruption]

Now that’s an astute observation.

[HarleyLady27]

YES!!! Finally someone said it like it was suppose to be said!!!

[justlurking]

Remember, Bush 41 gave us the KKKlintons. Bush 43 gave us Obast@rd.

Actually, you left out a few steps.

1. Clinton's first two years in office were a disaster. He campaigned as a centrist Democrat, but his policy initiatives were leftist.

2. The Republicans finally woke up and realized why Perot was so popular. They invested a lot of time and effort with focus groups, and developed the Contract With America. Almost all of it was practically copied from the Reform Party platform.

3. Thanks to #1 and #2, the 1994 mid-term election put the Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress for the first time in decades. And that's what I think most people miss: it probably wouldn't have happened without the outcome of the 1992 Presidential election.

4. The Republican wave election in 1994 also caused something else to happen: the unexpected defeat of an incumbent Democrat governor in Texas. There were some other things happening within Texas that contributed to it, but I'm not sure it would have happened without the anti-Clinton sentiment. The result: George W. Bush was elected Governor of Texas, putting him in position to run for President in 2000.

After the 1994 mid-terms, Clinton was struggling. He was unpopular, on his way to becoming a one-term President. Then, a couple of things happened:

• The Oklahoma City bombing. Clinton used that as a platform to cast ALL of his opposition as "right-wing extremists", and the lamestream media lapped it up. If you remember, Clinton all but blamed Rush Limbaugh, personally. Clinton's popularity soared.

• In 1996, the Republicans nominated a milquetoast candidate: Bob Dole. While Perot was still in the election, exit polls found he drew voters from the other two candidates equally. What's unsaid: if the Republicans had nominated a REAL conservative, a lot of voters wouldn't have stayed home. They still haven't learned that lesson (e.g. McCain and Romney).

If Clinton hadn't been re-elected, I doubt Bush 43 would have ever run for President -- because the only way Clinton would have been defeated was with a real conservative. The dot-com boom would have ensured a conservative's reelection in 2000. After that, what would happen is anyone's guess -- but I'll speculate that bin Laden would have been killed or captured, rather than just throwing cruise missiles at him after providing an early warning to Pakistan. However, I don't know if that would have prevented 9/11, and everything that has happened since then.

In another thread, someone made a comment about going back in time to talk to Obama's mother. My response: if Jack Ryan had just kept his pants on, he would be a US Senator, and Obama would still be a back-bencher in the IL Senate.

When you start thinking about it, there are a number of events that have had a huge effect on the future. Some of them were obvious, but others were apparently innocuous at the time.

Even in my own life, I can pinpoint several "inflection points" where a choice I made, or even a chance encounter, was a major turning point in my life. But, I didn't realize it at the time.

[justlurking]

Disagree all you want. You are wrong. And NWO Boosh remains a one term failure.

Did you read the rest of my posting?

I agree that breaking his pledge was Bush 41's downfall.

But, unless you have evidence that he made that pledge in bad faith, you are just spewing bile in the wrong direction.

[Jedidah]

Why would you make up your headline instead of just posting the article as published? You can editorialize all you want in comments.

I didn’t think that was allowed.

[Albion Wilde]

what he fails to realize: the rise of Perot was Bush 41's fault. Had Bush 41 not squandered the legacy handed to him by Reagan, Perot would have never achieved any level of popularity.

And Perot was saying many of the things Trump is saying: he opposed NAFTA ("Hear that giant sucking sound? That's your jobs going to Mexico") and decried the willingness of elites to sell out. He said they treated the USA "not like a country, but just an economy."

Poppy messed up. And he is living long enough to have to deal with it.

Other than the Adamses, we don't like dynasties in this country, and never have.

[Albion Wilde]

They don’t get how we can overlook Trump’s rudeness or lack of decorum. They don’t get that we like Trump because he values most the same things we do, i.e. border control, and a more robust economy. We recognize and accept some of Trumps’ bluster because that’s who he is, but expect him to get the job done, not lie to us.

Trump has said over and over, "This election is not about tone; it's not about "nice"; it's about competence. Who would you want to have negotiating for you? Hillary?"

[amihow]

Wow. Thanks for that. 9-11?

[savagesusie]

Poor old Bush who would have been President 8 years earlier, if the shadow government would have been successful in their assassination attempt of President Reagan.

Too bad the satanic Bush “family” ever had access to the USA government and was forced onto the Reagan campaign. But the Bushes were successful in planting satanist/Marxists on the SCOTUS so they could force a Vice System on us and destroy Rule of Law from within to establish their NWO.

Such a satanic “first family”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txukr5zgHnw

[justlurking]

The Bush family are decent and kind people—lets not demonize them however GHWB swung in on the coat-tails of Reagan whom he is not.

That's an interesting point, and worthy of discussion.

If Reagan had chosen a conservative running-mate, rather than an "establishment" candidate:

• Would it have affected the outcome of the election? I don't think so, as Carter was essentially cripped by the economy and the Iran hostage crisis.

• Would another candidate been a better choice to carry on Reagan's legacy, and perhaps defeating Clinton in 1992?

Who would have been a good candidate? Phil Crane was an Presidential candidate in 1980, although he dropped out early. He was the first chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and was considered one of the most conservative members of the House. However, at some point he took leave from the House to be treated for alcoholism, and it's unclear when that started.

[mkjessup]

We need to be reminding everyone that the last time a Bush was VP, the elected President was shot less than 90 days into his first term.

GHWB = Former CIA Director

Bush & Hinckley families = the very best of friends.

John Hinckley = still didn’t impress Jody Foster.

Ronald Reagan = went on to become the greatest President of the 20th Century.

[justlurking]

Regardless, after being hit by the NVA missile, McCain ejected, not following procedure which is why his arms and shoulders were so seriously injured.

I thought those injuries were due to torture by the NVA. Or was that just another convenient legend?

[georgiarat]

Don’t forget his appointment of David Souter to the Supreme Court.

[Psalm 144]

The man headed the CIA, and was -fooled- by Democrat congressmen? Liar or oathbreaker, it makes no difference.

[Psalm 144]

'The Bush family are decent and kind people' “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” ― Joseph Goebbels

[mkjessup]

If Reagan had chosen a conservative running-mate, rather than an "establishment" candidate ...
...Who would have been a good candidate? Phil Crane was an Presidential candidate in 1980, although he dropped out early.

Phil Crane was a good man.

I submit to you the man who would have continued the Reagan
years and remained true to the Gipper's legacy:

I give you the great Senator from North Carolina,
Jesse Alexander Helms!! :)

[Alberta's Child]

After the 1994 mid-terms, Clinton was struggling. He was unpopular, on his way to becoming a one-term President. Then, a couple of things happened: ...

Your list of two items there has a glaring oversight:

After the 1994 mid-terms, Clinton basically adopted Newt Gingrich's policies as his own. He signed most of the Contract With America into law.

For most of his tenure in office, Clinton basically governed as a moderate Republican with some serious psychological problems.

[dragnet2]

Former President George Bush is straining to understand an election season that’s stunningly off script. And he is often bewildered by what he sees?

These folks fail big at playing the stupid role. No one buys it.

But as long as the well connected insiders are wringing their hands and fretting, all is good.

[mkjessup]

I thought those injuries were due to torture by the NVA. Or was that just another convenient legend?

I would have to re-Google a search on that, however I have read commentary from McCain's contemporaries that he did in fact, eject improperly from his A-4E, however it wouldn't be surprising if the NVA had tortured him and exploited those injuries for their own ends.

[Vic S]

Another funny thing is that HW Bush claims he could not recall where he was the day JFK was assisaninated. ************************************************************************** The man’s 91 years old, he deserves a little slack in the memory department.

He made this statement about 20 years ago. He knows EXACTLY where he was that day. A lot of research has been given to this topic. He was in the CIA at the time, even though he said that he was the first director of the CIA that had never been in the CIA. He had a meeting with Hoover 2 days after the JFK assassination, it's documented, a memo was found through a foia request.