OK by your logic then his father only crashed because of Ross Perot and so with no Ross Perot he would not have crashed at all. It's all very confusing isn't it?
The 2004 election was closer than we would all have liked but President Bush did get the most votes in history despite an all out effort by the MSM to bring him down. All and all not too bad. Oh and by the way: I respect and admire President Bush but I also criticize him when I feel he needs it. If you want to call me a "Bushie", fine with me I don't care. I won't run from my president when times are tough.
I admire him, too. But he is not above criticism. And he needs it.NOW!
If you want to call me a "Bushie", fine with me I don't care. I won't run from my president when times are tough.
Sorry, I didn't mean "Bushie" as derogatory, as much as I meant it in priority. The Republican Party and its philosophy is more important than any one man. The Democrats are a party of "personalities", i.e. JFK as Churchill.
OK by your logic then his father only crashed because of Ross Perot......
Yes. Bush#41 had 37.7%, Perot had 19.0% and Clinton had 43.3%. The math can be performed a lot of ways, but the majority of Perot voters were dissatisfied Republicans and Reagan Democrats. As you can see, the total for Bush and Perot adds up to 56.7% of the popular vote, therefore, Clinton won only by a "solid" minority. This may happen to Republicans again, in 2008, if "W" is excessively unpopular and we will have 4-8 years of Democratic Darkness again. (puke!)