George Bush flew a Grumman TBF Avenger. 3 seater torpedo plane, off the light carrier San Jacinto. Ironically he witnessed the Japanese Kamikaze pilots crash diving into the American Ships, Aug 44/45.
You are correct. I saw a replica of his torpedo plane at the U.S.S Intrepid during the 9/11 memorial in 2008. It was a piece of American might and how it took three people to operate the plane is a whoa to me,
We will never get anything useful from Bob Schieffer. It is fine to mourn and praise President Bush and point out all the good things, but please all this talk of civility? What about Willie Horton, Lee Atwater, "Marines died in shame" comment about Walter Mondale.
Bush 41 was the first incumbent VP to be elected President since 1836 (Van Buren). However, he never understood people were NOT voting for him, they were voting for a 3rd “Reagan” term.
Well... it’s self explanatory. He won in ‘88 because of Reagan. My point is he ran unsuccessful in ‘92 because he was not effective in learning from Reagan in how to lead or keeping up with the Reagan agenda.
@@LineMountain Completely WRONG. He lost in 88 because Ross Purot (an independent) took over 10% of the conservative vote advocating a "balanced budget" (super conservative). Also, Clinton ran a great campaign based on "Change" and the media loved his youthful style. But, had Bush been given all of RP votes; he would have still won re-election.
Saint James well that’s exactly why you’re wrong. #1. A lot of studies show Perot (a more dignified version of Trump -protectionist/economic populism) votes split fairly evenly. #2. That’s called politics. Bush did not understand the performance of the Presidency. He wasn’t a very good speech maker and lost most of his previous elections before winning in ‘88, when he rode Reagan’s coattails. #3. As I said, Bush did not follow through with the Reagan agenda. The transition from Reagan to Bush was very harsh (like a change political parties) as Bush cleaned house of most Reaganites which alienated his conservative base. He also lost much of middle America (“Reagan Democrats”), partly to his elitist style, focus on foreign affairs, and yes - both Perot and Clinton.
@@LineMountain He won in 88 because Dukakis was a horrible candidate that related to nobody (kinda like Hilary); but as you pointed out, it is very rare that a incumbent VP wins. Bush / Qual was a conservative ticket; so, yes, it was going to be Reagan type agenda piece thru strength etc agenda. There is NO WAY, you or any "study" will or could convince me that Purot voters would not have OVERWHELMINGLY supported Bush. Just like Ralph Nader could have tilted the vote towards Gore. Nadar was a progressive and Porot was a social /fiscal conservative. No doubt many "independents" voted for both; however, one was conservative and one was progressive; use simple logic. That being said, Clinton was the better, newer, younger gun; and he did a good job of promoted a "change" agenda. Furthermore, just like today, the liberal media LOVED him and never really pressed him on his policies, anti-war movement and feminist agenda. The rest is HISTORY; Clinton won; and the became more moderate after the Gengrich Contract with America etc. Bubba paved the way for Hilary; and all his baggage hurt her and now he is a pariah of the metoo movement. I am NOT a Bill Clinton hater; but things have come full circle and Hillary was just a disaster.
Trump should release the JFK files before he speaks at his funeral.
Deepest sympathy to the family and friends of this amazing man. Thank you for your many years of public service. May you rest in peace.
Comparing HW to 45 is like
comparing an eagle to
a cuckoo clock.
Let the slobber fest begin.......
Best CINC I ever served under.
Politics is brutal. He was underrated.
Propaganda at it's finest
George Bush flew a Grumman TBF Avenger. 3 seater torpedo plane, off the light carrier San Jacinto. Ironically he witnessed the Japanese Kamikaze pilots crash diving into the American Ships, Aug 44/45.
You are correct.
I saw a replica of his torpedo plane at the U.S.S Intrepid during the 9/11 memorial in 2008.
It was a piece of American might and how it took three people to operate the plane is a whoa to me,
We will never get anything useful from Bob Schieffer. It is fine to mourn and praise President Bush and point out all the good things, but please all this talk of civility? What about Willie Horton, Lee Atwater, "Marines died in shame" comment about Walter Mondale.
Satan will be welcoming his soul with open arms.
Bush 41 was the first incumbent VP to be elected President since 1836 (Van Buren). However, he never understood people were NOT voting for him, they were voting for a 3rd “Reagan” term.
Exactly, Bush knew the republican agenda was bigger them him.... so whats your point....
Well... it’s self explanatory. He won in ‘88 because of Reagan. My point is he ran unsuccessful in ‘92 because he was not effective in learning from Reagan in how to lead or keeping up with the Reagan agenda.
@@LineMountain Completely WRONG. He lost in 88 because Ross Purot (an independent) took over 10% of the conservative vote advocating a "balanced budget" (super conservative). Also, Clinton ran a great campaign based on "Change" and the media loved his youthful style. But, had Bush been given all of RP votes; he would have still won re-election.
Saint James well that’s exactly why you’re wrong. #1. A lot of studies show Perot (a more dignified version of Trump -protectionist/economic populism) votes split fairly evenly. #2. That’s called politics. Bush did not understand the performance of the Presidency. He wasn’t a very good speech maker and lost most of his previous elections before winning in ‘88, when he rode Reagan’s coattails. #3. As I said, Bush did not follow through with the Reagan agenda. The transition from
Reagan to Bush was very harsh (like a change political parties) as Bush cleaned house of most Reaganites which alienated his conservative base. He also lost much of middle America (“Reagan Democrats”), partly to his elitist style, focus on foreign affairs, and yes - both Perot and Clinton.
@@LineMountain He won in 88 because Dukakis was a horrible candidate that related to nobody (kinda like Hilary); but as you pointed out, it is very rare that a incumbent VP wins. Bush / Qual was a conservative ticket; so, yes, it was going to be Reagan type agenda piece thru strength etc agenda. There is NO WAY, you or any "study" will or could convince me that Purot voters would not have OVERWHELMINGLY supported Bush. Just like Ralph Nader could have tilted the vote towards Gore. Nadar was a progressive and Porot was a social /fiscal conservative. No doubt many "independents" voted for both; however, one was conservative and one was progressive; use simple logic. That being said, Clinton was the better, newer, younger gun; and he did a good job of promoted a "change" agenda. Furthermore, just like today, the liberal media LOVED him and never really pressed him on his policies, anti-war movement and feminist agenda. The rest is HISTORY; Clinton won; and the became more moderate after the Gengrich Contract with America etc. Bubba paved the way for Hilary; and all his baggage hurt her and now he is a pariah of the metoo movement. I am NOT a Bill Clinton hater; but things have come full circle and Hillary was just a disaster.
You got to be kidding me