Bush I caved to the dems at camp David during the build up of the Gulf War in the tax increase because he wanted to get on with the war. They lied to his face and he never called them on it !
The Bush I team didn't even campaign for him because they thought he would have it locked and they were wrong. James Baker ended up running the Bush I re-election after they realized he was in trouble. The problem was it was in Aug just a couple months before the election.
The bottom line is if Bush I was actually running for re-election 6-12 months out he would have won easily. He sat on his ass and didn't think he could fail because of the success in Iraq--He was wrong !
Bush II learned from Bush I and he won't make the same mistake and you can bet on it !
I'll agree in part. Bush 1 did sit on his ass and that bothered
the hell out of me. I felt (and I'm not of a conspirator mind-set),
that his opponent (clintbag) had some sort of weapon to use
if Mr. Bush swung too hard. That may never be known.
But the democrats had the majority in both houses and there
was little if anything, that Bush senior could have done. I do
feel he owed the public a full disclosure of all that was happening
behind the scenes, to offer a decent explanation of his failure
to stand behind his "read my lips" statement, but Mr. Bush 1
was not of that nature.
Bush junior is giving himself to the public and remaining in
the spotlight as bill clinton did. For that reason, I have the
hopes that your second statement might be correct.
The public; his constituents, deserve all the information he
can offer, regarding every move and proposal he makes.
His father neglected to go before the public. That, was his
failure.
I voted for both, and I would do it again. They are both
of the highest caliber of Presidential material.
(in my opinion)
Thanks