Posted on 12/17/2014 4:31:44 AM PST by LT Brass Bancroft
I was only 11, so I was wondering who was the preferred candidate of those of us who were old enough to vote back then. Of course H.W. Bush won the nomination. I remember Bob Dole, Pat Robertson, Peter DuPont, and I think Jack Kemp running. Did Bush have trouble convincing conservatives to vote for him, or did everyone just figure that if he was good enough to be Reagan's Vice President, he was good enough for the nomination?
I guess it was H.W, because he was with Reagan. At least, that’s what we thought. The major thing I remember about him was his “Read My Lips - No New Taxes” pledge.
I think that this was the true realization for me that “Republican” could also mean RINO.
I remember supporting Phil Graham. For what it’s worth... ;-)
I don’t have any strong memories of the 1988 election. As I recall, the GOP primary was pretty much an academic exercise because it was understood that Bush — as the sitting VP — would get the nomination as long as he was running.
HWB was sort of running as the extension of Reagan - you know, four more years of RR. That wasn’t the case of course, but that’s why he won the primary and the general.
It’s tough to beat a sitting VP in a primary anyway. Robertson had his niche, Kemp had his niche, but what conservatives those two didn’t siphon off, stayed with Reagan’s VP.
There was nothing like the Internet or Freerepublic in 1988. Using just the media of the day it was impossible to determine the truth about any candidate. I voted for Bush because of his association with Reagan. But thinking back, when Reagan was running it was not possible for me to determine that he would be as conservative as he turned out to be. He had been a Democrat, recall. The press (newspapers, remember them?) was 100% against him. They still had great influence. It was Reagan’s Morning in America speech, that told me what I really needed to know.
That depends on where you worked. At Digital Equipment Corporation we had a world wide network and we argued over such things in something called VAXnotes starting around 1984.
Bush was the sitting Vice President for a popular two-term conservative president.
He was not only the “front-runner” for the nomination, he was all but “anointed”.
Quick story about H.W. I remember being in Kuwait and we were told that there was a ceasefire and we were halting our advance. I told the person next to me, well with this victory it looks like we just guaranteed Bush four more years. At the time, that looked like a pretty solid prediction as my fellow Marines agreed with me.
“That depends on where you worked. At Digital Equipment Corporation we had a world wide network and we argued over such things in something called VAXnotes starting around 1984.”
I was, and to a large degree still am, a member of the great unwashed-flyover-country-bitter-gun-toting-clinger group. In 1988 I read the paper. I had already fallen out of love with Newsweek and Time and was growing suspicious of TV news. I recall channel flipping the big three, ABC, NBC and CBS for the same news story (I don’t recall which one) and the bias and editorial bent of the presentation slapped me in the face. I think I joined the internet about 1992(?)
Phil Gramm did not run in 1988.
You must be thinking of Phil Gramm. He was probably the most conservative candidate, although he primarily emphasized economic opportunity and freedom over social issues. He had a PhD in Economics, IIRC. His wife was also an economist who took a job in one of the Bush administrations as head of one of the major departments.
Bob Dole won Iowa and some other Midwest states. Bush won NH and most of the other states. Pat Robertson made a flash as the evangelical Christian candidate, fishing second in Iowa. Jack Kemp was the fiscal conservative candidate but never caught fire.
The only true conservative at the time was Paul Laxalt. Unfortunately H.W. was backed by Ronald Reagan and that pretty well sucked all the oxygen out of the room
“Phil Gramm did not run in 1988.”
Yes he did. He just didn’t get anywhere. It was in 1988 that his investment in a company that invested in a softcore porn film became an issue.
Novak via Huffington Post....
“McCain was a loyal backer of Gramm’s failed 1988 campaign for president and did not leave until the candidate dropped out of the race.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/18/mccain-okay-with-phil-gra_n_113565.html
But your forgiven for forgetting, I suspect he’d rather forget too ;-)
Got 'cha beat by a decade. I was at GM, where we used DTSS (Dartmouth Time Sharing System). DTSS was a system using "high speed" phone lines and teletype machines, using a BASIC interpreter on the main "server". We would write "emails" around the world among GM units. the "emails" were BASIC "print" statements which would print out on the TTY anything that was stored as a BASIC program. We did this in 1974 to send messages and data.
Yes...Phil Gramm :-) Mostly because he was pro-guns.
I have a love/hate relationship with the Internet, but I will say that it has made me more aware of who I'm voting for. Back in the 80s and before, we were still relying on the networks for our news and information. Now it's difficult for a candidate to hide his bad points from all but the lo-fo idiot voters.
Yes, Bush ran as a third Reagan term. He definitely had the base fooled
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.