The Legacy of George Bush

I enjoy your podcast but today’s episode was bewildering. When discussing the Panama invasion (not “war”) you characterize it as a “success”? Tell that to the families of the 3000 civilians killed in the search for a man we’d once helped put in place and Bush himself once had on the CIA payroll. Was it a success to the Iraqi civilians killed in a bomb shelter we already had been alerted to? No mention about how his political maneuvering to support Reagan as his vice meant staying silent as thousands of people died of AIDS? How he never apologized for the racist Willie Horton ad: was this part of his “character and grace”? Are you too young to know or are you playing by some misguided idea that to tell the totality of a world leader is impolite when they’ve died? Was it Dana Carvey and the economy who brought him down or did any of the many protesters and critics of the day also help Americans think twice? What a profound and concerning disappointment today’s episode was.

I’ve enjoyed your podcast tremendously but feel deeply disappointed in your recaping of the legacy of George Bush. As an Iraqi American, I was in Baghdad as a child when shelters were bombed and infrastructres ruined. Where is this in your recapturing of his career as a president? When listeners finish listening to this episode (as I did) they’re left feeling a kind of liking for this president but it’s not the full picture. It’s deceiving. If you’re going to cover this, then you have a responsibility to also mention the people affected by his actions , whether it’s citizens of Iraq, the LGBTQ community and people of Panama to say the least. What of the acusations from Women?

How can you possibly discuss the 92 election and not mention Perot and his impact? To declare that Bush received only 38% of the vote and not mention Clinton’s percentage or Perot (almost 19%?) was a gross misrepresentation of this election.

Virtually no mention in 'George H.W. Bush's failure win a second term is that it was in this campaign that the religious right first took a significant hold on the Republican Party. Sadly, Bush was unable to deal with this.

All due respect to your fine podcast, but how do you discuss Bush 41's 1992 defeat and never mention Ross Perot? Citing Perot's 19.7 million votes would not only have put Bush's dismal 38% showing in perspective, but also strengthened your discussion of the GOP's drift away from the center.

In today's episode of "The Daily" I was astounded, thunderstruck, and in general gobsmacked that in the section that discussed the 1992 presidential campaign, there was no mention of Ross Perot -- he won 18.9% of the popular vote! I guess his impact on the results would have hampered the narrative? In general I really enjoy and appreciate the show, but this really surprised me.

Why does the Times always fail to mention Ross Perot as a key contributor to the results of the 1992 election? No mention of the most successful 3rd party candidate in modern history seems egregiously misleading.