Boy GHWB's resume was impressive, but from a historical standpoint, yes it could have been better. On the plus side, GHWB was more of a hard @$$ than we knew. A good friend read a book ( I don't have the name ) where as VP he went to South America un-escorted and confronted a drug lord to get some of our people back. Not letting Schwarzkopf finish the Job in job in Iraq, bad move. Not listening to Bill Bennett and VP Quayle do not go along with George Mitchell and raising taxes, Stupid.
The question begs, who could have Reagan brought aboard instead of Bush.
Tangent to this is we as Conservatives will embrace the RINO's and make them part of the team when we win big, when they win big, they stick it too us. And that can be fodder for the Divorce I and now Tom Tancredo is talking about aka we will split off, they will go the way of the wigs if they don't change their behavior...
I think conservatives need to ignore the labels of Republicans and Democrats.
We need to focus on WHO are the Globalist and who are not.
The Globalist are in both Republican and Democrat parties.
They are the ones that want to wipe out the sovereignty of the United States, the States and the individual. It’s a slow metamorphosis and people need to wake up.
Once you start viewing everyone as either a Globalist or not, then the picture becomes very clear. How are leaders lead becomes very clear. How they vote is very clear, and there are no surprises like in the Republican and Democrat party.
Right about everything you said about GHWB.
Answer to your question, since the VP choice distressed me from the very start: Jack Kemp. Reagan did not need the “state votes” from any VP candidate to win. Kemp was already known as a good supporter of all Reagan’s viewpoints, and would have been a great successor.