I’m not sure you realize you are asking me to accept an account about Reagan’s choosing Bush 1 from “THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE.” One that was written the year 2000 for whatever nefarious purpose the Times might have had at the time.
Not only that but from within the article itself I read the line,”George Bush was picked at the very last moment and largely by a combination of chance and some behind-the-scenes maneuvering.”
I don’t know with absolute certainty that there was more maneuvering than what the article states but at the time there were other unanswered questions.A big one was about how Bush 1 was even considered as a candidate for the top job. Then the question about how someone so opposite to Reagan would be considered as the “number 2” in front of other capable and less oppositional options. A consensus at the time was that the choice was made for Reagan by party big wigs.
So did Bush 1 actually feign acceptance so he could become vice pres? Were there other power brokers saying what would or would not happen? (By the way I never liked Kissinger either.) I would suggest that those are some of the other behind the scene maneuverings the article didn’t mention.
No, I still think there was something rotten in Denmark and the idea of A LAST MINUTE CHANCE smells really fishy.
Actually Reagan’s pick for VP was widely discussed back then. That is when I heard the term “brokered convention” for the first time. Back then they did not announce running mates before the convention.
Maybe that’s why they name them early now?
don’t put words in my mouth. Reread my post. I never asked you to accept anything.
Deep state getting ready to install GHWB after Reagan assassination?
I agree with your assessment. GHWB is not on our side.