[Defiant]

No, but only because Perot had a bug up his ass for the Bush family for some reason. And he may have been a Clinton operative for all we know. EDS sure made a lot of money serving the welfare state.

Of course, there were benefits to Bush losing in 92, such as the Republican Congress in 94. That would probably not have happened if a Republican other than Bush had won in 88 and again in 92. It took a disastrous Democrat President, coupled with a voting populace that had been won over by the conservative principles of Reagan, to sweep out the Democrats when they overreached. Even a popular Republican might not have been the impetus for that to happen, and a lot of good things in the 90s resulted from the Republican Congress. A lot of bad things resulted from Clinton, so it is a conundrum of "what ifs". Best we can say is that Bushes are disasters.

[x]

No, but only because Perot had a bug up his ass for the Bush family for some reason. And he may have been a Clinton operative for all we know. EDS sure made a lot of money serving the welfare state.

Sure. Perot did want to see Bush defeated for whatever crazy reason of his own.

But "Clinton operative" makes it sound like he was taking orders from somebody.

Not likely to me. Ross did it on his own -- a truly unguided missile.

"The best 'straw' is always somebody who doesn't know he's a 'straw.'" -- Howie Carr