Replies

First of all, before focusing on '88, focus on '80 and '84.

There was a universal consensus in 1980 that Carter had screwed the pooch, fouling up everything he touched from foreign policy to domestic issues, to the economy, THAT is why Senator Chappaquiddick of the U.S.S. Oldsmobile challenged Carter for the 'Rat nomination that year and damn near pulled it off. Once America got a good look at Ronald Reagan and his 'there you go again' line in that presidential debate, the die was cast and 44 states later, the Buffoon from Plains was sent packing and rightly so.

In '84, the 'Rat Party was laboring under some illusion that former VP Walter Mondale (aka 'Mr Excitement') actually had a shot at beating Reagan. And an over-prepped Reagan in their first debate created a few doubts among the faint hearted. But it was not to last, and Reagan swept the continent with a 49 state landslide, and the only reason he did NOT take Minnesota was that he (Reagan) personally directed his campaign not to mount a major effort there because he didn't want to totally humiliate Mondale.

Now for '88. GHWB waited eight years for his shot, and there was a sense among both Republicans and America in general that he was as well prepared to be President as any American in the 20th Century. GHWB certainly had the resume' but the true Reaganauts never got over their suspicion that Bush was a throwback to the liberal Rockefeller Republicans (he was), and never fully trusted him. (Even after throwing Saddam out of Kuwait, GHWB's comment about a 'New World Order' became the fodder of conspiratorialists everywhere)

But Dukakis was probably the weakest candidate the 'Rats could put up that year ('88) and his absurd choice of Lloyd Bentsen of Texas to run with him was just a pale attempt to emulate John F. Kennedy's selection of LBJ to 'balance' the ticket in 1960. The only notable quote to come out of the whole campaign was Bentsen's cranky old turd of a sneer directed at Dan Quayle about 'you are no John Kennedy', what Bentsen couldn't stand was the thought that HE was no LBJ, and in fact didn't even rise to the stature of a Hubert Humphrey. Nevertheless, Dukakis gave it a good shot, but the American people wanted a 'third term' for Reagan, and electing GHWB was the best they could do.

Now in '92, GHWB was tripped up by his 'read my lips' pledge about not raising taxes, the successful attacks by 'Rats which depicted him as being out of touch with the common folks, plus the fact that Governor Billigula of Arkansas was indeed the slickest liar to come forth in 'Rat circles in many a year. And for '92, picking Al Gore was probably a smart move for Clinton, because Gore (at that time) had an image as a solid moderate, Clinton had that 'aw shucks' quality about him, and the fact is, the Bush/Quayle II campaign was one of the greatest debacles ever seen. There is no reason that GHWB should NOT have been re-elected if he had taken the gloves off and smacked Clinton around for what he was: an adulterous, draft-doding, pot-smoking liar that was up to his armpits in illegal activities back in Arkansas (think 'prison blood scandal', which resulted in the poisoning of thousands of innocent people due to Clinton-condoned corrupt prison blood services).

This election is not like '88, it is more like '84 and in the end, Republicans and Reagan Democrats are going to come home and throw the lever for Bush/Cheney, because when they consider the prospect of actually electing a self-confessed war criminal, a double talking nuancy-boy, a bought-and-paid-for cuckold owned and operated by his billionaire spouse, they will not only vote for George W. Bush, they will SLAM the lever, MASH the button, whatever device they're using, and 'just say no' to John F'in Kerry and his Silky Pony running mate.

This rant brought to you by Mad Mammoth, stomping 'Rats since 1972... :)