Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Defiant

If Bush didn’t run in 92, would Perot have run?


71 posted on 03/19/2013 12:47:02 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: dfwgator
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.

103 posted on 03/19/2013 2:07:53 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson