So you don't think the weakness of Bush Sr's. positions had anything to do with his poor showing in '92. If ol' Ross hadn't been there by gum we would have had good ol' milquetoast Republicans like God wanted us to right? A politician's position shouldn't have anything to do with why he doesn't get votes, we as citizens should be thankful the parties allow us to vote for who they nominate? That about the gist of it?
The only thing that would have happened if Perot hadn't been in the election is one of two things. Clinton's success would have been higher or the number of voters turning out would have been lower. Bush had no chance as he was a poor successor to Ronald Reagan to begin with.
You're right that Papa Bush was a pretty weak candidate, but I don't think he was weak enough to lose to clinton if Perot had not been taking so many conservative votes away from him. He did have the advantage of incumbancy.