The mood of this year's presidential election was less pro-Clinton than it was anti-Bush. I sympathize with that feeling because Bush, while perhaps an able bureaucrat, was not presidential material.
He did not understand that a Republican president can't compromise with liberals and expect to come out on top. His "kinder, gentler" attitude got him nothing but a one-way ticket to Texas.Nevertheless, Bush was preferable to Clinton. The respected economist Thomas Sowell noted that it's better to have a second-class fireman in the White House than a first-class arsonist.
Two other prominent figures in the Republican effort this year have been Vice President Quayle and Rush Limbaugh. Even when Quayle was correct, the media would direct public attention away from the message and toward ridiculing the messenger.
Scott Pierce, the TV columnist, demonstrated this point in his comments about Quayle's "Murphy Brown" remark. Now, he says, Murphy Brown has a job and Dan Quayle doesn't.
"Murphy Brown" is, of course, a fictional character and has a fictional job (never mind that the same has been argued about Quayle).
For those who were misled by media accounts, Quayle's criticism was aimed at Hollywood producers and writers and their liberal agenda of alternative lifestyles, not at the fictional character of "Murphy Brown" - but that was apparently inconsequential.
As for Rush Limbaugh, as credible a personality as Tom Barberi of KALL Radio dismisses his significance to that of an entertainer who has successfully disguised himself as a political conservative for financial exploitation.
While many are put off by his Muhammad Ali-like self-promotion and bravado, others recognize him for his political and social acumen. Ali was a consummate showman, but that did not diminish his substance as a champion fighter.
Those who don't take Rush's analytical skills seriously should likewise not be taken seriously themselves.