What might or might not have been true in 2004 has nothing to do
with 1992. The world and the electorate's view of it could not have been any more different.
I don't object all that much to your points. I think there's a lot of quibbling going on over semantics, and none of us can go to an alternate universe and see what might have been if all things were equal but no third party run occurred in 1992. Personally, I think the successful third party run was in itself partly a strong repudiation of the incumbent. But I'm not looking to spend a lot of time debating whether "repudiation" or "strong repudiation" is more appropriate.
The real point is that the entire theme of this week is completely missed by both the Fuzzy's of this world who think Bush's losses are under-emphasized by the media, and the HO's and other (mostly) Trumpies of the world who were just outraged I tell ya! that an AP tweet would even mention the '92 defeat.
Both are dead wrong. To not mention the '92 defeat would do a tremendous disservice to the memory of George HW Bush, because some of the best of that admirable man shined through in his handling of profound defeats that most of us could not even imagine. Defeat was emphasized in every single remembrance, and it would have been disrespectful in its lack of completeness if that were not the case.
The fact that our absurd partisanship can't be pierced even by just a few days of national mourning like this is what is really getting under my skin.
|
(
In response to this post by BocaHoo91)
Posted: 12/06/2018 at 10:58AM