In the New York Times, RICHARD L. BERKE as Published: September 30, 1999 wrote about “Mr. Bush’s display of a festering resentment toward Mr. Perot and Mr. Buchanan”. Is Bush’s amnesty and legal immigration program part of this resentment? Did Bush have two vendettas when he became president, get Saddam Hussein for the attempt on his father’s life and get the Buchanan Perot voters for betraying his father in 1992 and causing his election defeat?
Gov. George W. Bush sternly denounced Ross Perot and Patrick J. Buchanan today, suggesting that ”personal vendettas” may be driving their apparent alliance to have Mr. Buchanan seek the Reform Party nomination. Mr. Bush asserted that both men helped undermine his father’s unsuccessful campaign for re-election to the White House in 1992.
”I’ve always thought the 1992 campaign was hard for my dad to get traction in the race because of, first, Patrick J. Buchanan, and then Ross Perot inflicted a series of cuts,” Mr. Bush said in a response to questions at a news conference in a two-day campaign swing in this state. ”If the adage is true — you die a death of a thousand cuts in politics — Ross Perot was a part of the thousand cuts.”
Mr. Bush’s display of a festering resentment toward Mr. Perot and Mr. Buchanan was unusual in a campaign in which Mr. Bush has tried to strike an accommodating tone to win over a broad spectrum of voters.
Are Lou Dobbs Democrats taken from the Buchanan Perot voters, and now Bush focuses his resentment on them as well? Buchanan Perot voters voted against Bush Sr in 1992. They voted against Bush Jr. as governor of Texas, and Perot voters consider Perot a real Texican and Bush Jr. to be a Yale man carpetbagger. Pat Buchanan voters voted against Bush Sr. in 1992 and against Bush Jr. in 2000.
Buchanan voters caused the election to go to the Supreme Court. If they had all voted for Bush Jr. as they are supposed to, there would have been no problem in 2000.
Florida page 13:
Republican (Bush) 2,912,790
Democrat (Gore) 2,912,253
Reform (Buchanan) 17,484
Bush won, officially, by 537 votes. Pat Buchanan got 17,484 votes. So if Buchanan had not run, Bush would have won without the recount mess.
William Jefferson Clinton 43.0%
George H. W. Bush 37.4%
H. Ross Perot 18.9%
So if Perot had not run in 1992, Bush Sr. would have won, Bush Jr. can tell himself. It was the Buchanan Perot voters who betrayed Bush Sr. in 1992 and Bush Jr. in 2000. They are disloyal and Bush Jr. resents them. Or so we might infer. Bush Jr. ignored the warning signs before 9-11. After 9-11, he has done almost nothing to secure the borders or protect the people from immigration.
In 1992 and 2000, Buchanan Perot voters voted against immigration. They realize its harming them in wages and economic prosperity. Bush Jr. wants to fulfill his second vendetta, the first being against Saddam, on these voters by amnesty and legal immigration?
So Clinton picked up 6 percentage points from 1992 to 1996 from Perot. That is one way to define or measure Democrat votes taken by Perot, this is one way to measure the Lou Dobbs Democrats.
The following article makes the argument that it was the Perot voter who voted the Democrats into control of Congress in 2006.
“Put simply, 2006 saw the return of the Perot voter: economically populist, socially moderate voters with highly nationalist tendencies. Had the Democrats not courted candidates who fit this mold in a number of high profile races, Republicans would almost certainly control the Senate right now if not the House. Democratic candidates like Webb, McCaskill, Casey, and Tester all won by appealing to this specific group of voters who found themselves once again disenchanted with a Republican Party led by a president named Bush.”
“My guess is this group is also anti-free trade and strongly opposed to the president’s immigration plan. Again, Perotism rises 14 years later to defeat another guy named Bush.”
“The new Democratic majority has these voters to thank for its ascendancy. Without their votes in the industrial north, west, and midwest, Republicans would still be in charge.
… This gives Republicans a real shot at winning these voters back if the Boxerites take over the party the way they did after these same Perot types voted Democrat back in 1992 and watched as the party veered to the far left.”
Note, the odd question marks in the original were edited out.
Buchananites, Perot Voters, Nader Greens, Lou Dobbs Democrats. The name changes but the dissatisfaction with the two headed monster stays the same? And its because of bipartisan opposition to the American people on immigration, jihad, etc? The bipartisan jihad on the middle class is finally catching up with the two party duopoly as Nader calls it?
Many Bush Jr. administration appointees were from Bush Sr. administration. But many of these disliked Reagen Republicans and Reagen Democrats starting in or even before 1988.
By Daniel Gallington
May 19, 2007 Washington Times
In a nutshell, many of the “Bush I” people disliked the Reagan people because the Reaganites thought many of the Bush people second-rate.
In addition, many of the Bush I people tried very hard to be Reagan people and were not allowed in, not even during the second Reagan term, or even during the last half of the second Reagan term. Result? These were people with serious chips on their shoulders, especially for the Reagan-era traditional Republicans.