The Next Best Thing to Reagan
“Abysmal,” “embarrassing,” “demagoguery,” and “silliness” all decorated the Tribune’s evaluation of George Bush’s presidential campaign; “lousy running mate” summed up Dan Quayle. Squires wasn’t nicer in conversation. “I don’t think the guy has ever really accomplished much or initiated much in his career,” said Squires of Bush. “He’s always been more of a presider.”
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
“Naive is a kind characterization for [Dukakis’s] statements on sensitive and complicated matters such as . . . where he might cut the Defense Department budget,” wrote Squires. “Nor has he made a substantive case that he has anything other than simplistic or outmoded ideas for dealing with domestic issues involving productivity, competitiveness and economic growth.”
“We basically endorsed the continuation of Ronald Reagan,” Squires said, “and hoped Bush would be more sensitive to human needs. The problem with Reagan is he pretended there were no poor in America and basically didn’t do a damn thing for the cities.”
Let’s say you have your doubts about this line of thought. Is there a newspaper for you? The Sun-Times? Wear your hip boots. “His campaign,” said Chicago’s second paper, “has demonstrated the strength of leadership and self-confidence capable of guiding the country toward a new century with steadfast determination of purpose.”
Presidential races are pretty easy to call when they’re reduced to a referendum on the White House record of a guy who doesn’t have one.
Butler’s the prominent Oak Brook polo player and impresario whose revival of Hair, which he originally produced on Broadway, opens at the Vic next Tuesday. He was speaking to us by car phone. “There’s a major feeling I have, and I’m not alone–I feel that what really happened is the people of the movement in the 60s discovered flower power was not going to work, it couldn’t work–
