GEORGE H.W. BUSH, "SPEECH AT
J. Michael Hogan and Sara Ann Mehltretter
blame the shortcomings of Bush's speech on all the hoopla and controversy
surrounding a campaign rally. Yet the speech was quite typical of his
"stump" speeches during the 1992 campaign. Like many of his speeches,
Bush's speech at
our analysis of Bush's speech at
Biography of George H. W. Bush
George H. W. Bush was born on
After working in
Bush's father, an "Eisenhower Republican," represented the state of
Succeeding Ronald Reagan--the "Great Communicator"--was no easy task. As John Robert Green has observed: "With his unmatched skill as a communicator, and with the simplicity of his message, Ronald Reagan was able to make most Americans think past the age of anxiety that his policies had created and concentrate instead on how good they felt about being Americans. He was, indeed, a tough act to follow." In addition to lacking Reagan's skill as a communicator, Bush had few ideas for making his own mark on the presidency. David Mervin dubbed Bush's term in office "the guardianship presidency." Michael Duffy and Dan Goodgame have characterized Bush as "marching in place." Ryan J. Barilleaux and Mark J. Rozell described Bush's tendency to veto legislation--116 times during his four years in office--as exercising "prudence as policy," but others saw it as a reluctance to try anything new. Bush proposed initiatives on education and illegal drugs, but they made little progress. Even his major legislative successes, including the Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, did little to break the inertia of his overall policy-making efforts.
Bush's foreign policy was dominated by two events, the collapse of the
Economic problems, however, eroded Bush's post-war popularity. Reagan's
Part of Bush's declining popularity may be attributed to his reversal on taxation. In his 1988 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Bush made his infamous promise not to raise taxes: "And the Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I'll say no, and they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say to them, 'Read my lips: no new taxes.'" According to the Annenberg Campaign Mapping Project archives, Bush repeated the "read my lips" pledge only eight times during the 1988 general election campaign. Yet many political analysts credited Bush's victory over Democrat Michael Dukakis to his "no new taxes" pledge.
Late in 1989,
however, the Bush administration was forced to reevaluate its position. On
Recognizing that taxes had to be raised in order to avoid a huge budget deficit, Bush released a statement in June of 1990 admitting that the administration was considering tax increases. Although several American newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, had been calling for tax increases, the press, the Democrats, and even some Republicans blasted Bush for going back on his campaign promise. While Bush could have made the case for tax increases based on economic changes since 1988, the White House remained silent, proposing the increase to Congress but barely communicating with the public and press. Bush's budget plan, formed in closed-door meetings between White House and congressional leaders, was proposed to Congress during a Rose Garden press conference on September 26. The budget would cut $301 billion in mandatory and discretionary spending, but it also would include tax increases of $134 billion, imposed primarily through a phased increase in gasoline taxes.
conservative Republican Newt Gingrich, Congress rejected the Bush plan on
Although the tax increase was less than Reagan's 1982 tax hike, Bush took a serious hit in popularity. Previously touted as a trustworthy man of noble character, the reversal on taxes created new doubts that Bush was not "a man of convictions." Only nine percent of those polled in June of 1992 agreed with the statement, "George Bush has kept his promises." The Republican Party also took a hit because of Bush's reversal. In the 1990 midterm elections, Republicans lost ten Senate seats, 25 House seats, and two governorships. Even Newt Gingrich, the popular Republican Speaker of the House who had opposed the tax increase from the beginning, barely held onto his seat. A year later, as the 1992 presidential campaign got underway, Bush's approval rating stood at just 46 percent and was continuing to decline. With declining popular support, intense criticism from within his own party, and the economy still struggling, George H. W. Bush began his campaign for reelection facing a number of challenges.
The 1992 Campaign
As 1991 came to a close, economic conditions in
Early in the 1992 campaign, Bush stuck to the classic "Rose Garden" strategy, tending to official business and trying to appear "presidential." The Rose Garden strategy kept Bush in the White House for most of the campaign, with his ethos tied to the prestige of the office and his day-to-day decisions as President. Unfortunately for Bush, the strategy failed. With his approval rating plummeting to only 32 percent in mid-July, the White House finally abandoned the Rose Garden strategy. Looking presidential only exacerbated suspicions that Bush was not acting presidential.
Bush's main challenger was, of course, Governor Bill Clinton of
especially impressed by
Change vs. more of the same
The economy, stupid
Don't forget health care
These three themes defined both
Bush's problems in the 1992 campaign was H. Ross Perot, a
turmoil throughout the 1992 campaign. His candidacy began in February of 1992,
and he initially enjoyed widespread support. By
mid-spring, however, critics were beginning to question Perot's fitness for
office, pointing to his hiring of private investigators to track his business
associates and even his own children. Stung by the
criticism, Perot withdrew from the race on
to lack any strategy for dealing with the economic issues that arose during the
Economist characterized the Bush strategy as "to seem above the fray of
domestic politics, and to remind a grateful public of the sure-footedness of the
commander-in-chief of Desert Storm." Instead of
viewing Bush as a strong leader, however, many Americans grew increasingly
frustrated with a president who seemed indifferent to their economic problems.
After six quarters of economic decline, Bush continued to insist that the
economy was not nearly as bad as people thought and that the nation was "poised
for economy recovery." Voters no
longer appeared willing to accept the president's reassurances. On the same day
that Bush once again predicted economic recovery on Rush Limbaugh's radio talk
The day after
the Republican National Convention,
10, Bush also went to the Detroit Economic Club to outline his plan.
Consisting of six basic goals and 13 specific proposals, Bush's "Agenda for
American Renewal" focused on free trade and global economic competition,
education and training, incentives for business, economic security for workers,
equal opportunity, and "rightsizing" government. Bush gave few details on his
proposals, but he did call for "radical changes in our education system to
prepare our children for a constantly changing workplace," as well as "new approaches for reaching out to
those who have been left behind." Like
As he had
throughout the campaign, Bush criticized
Bush claimed to see global economic
competition as a business opportunity, while
Gov. Bill Clinton labeled President
George Bush's new economic package as ''simply more of the same trickle down''
favoring the rich while giving ''small sop to the middle class'' and slashing
benefits for the elderly and disabled veterans. ''Why did it take you over 3 1/2
years just to come up with more of the same?''
The president had swung and missed, according to
As the campaign wore on, Bush had many opportunities to respond to
The September 23 Speech
Campaign speeches have a bad reputation. Although some of the most famous speeches in American history have, in fact, been campaign speeches, many people think of such speeches as vacuous, ritualistic, or even deceptive. Some scholars argue that campaigns are good for us, and empirical research shows that candidates generally do keep their promises. Still, we do not expect much from campaign "stump" speeches. Because they are often carefully staged "media events," delivered to hand-picked audiences of cheering supporters, campaign speeches rarely contain serious discussion of complex issues. Instead, they tend toward hoopla and "sound bites," with the candidate "preaching to a choir" of committed supporters.
Campaign speeches have changed dramatically since the advent of television a half century ago. Once delivered from the back of train cars or literally from the stumps of felled trees, campaign speeches are now designed for television, with careful attention paid to crafting memorable one-liners and exploiting visually appealing settings. In 1960, as Theodore H. White observed, television became "the atmosphere of politics in which politicians breathed or suffocated to death," and some politicians learned that lesson better than others. Richard Nixon used television to good effect in his "Checkers" speech in 1952, but John F. Kennedy proved the real master of the medium when he bested Nixon on TV during the 1960 campaign. Twenty years later, Ronald Reagan proved even more skilled at speaking on television. Employing an "effeminate style" that exploited both the intimacy and the visual pathos of the medium, as Kathleen Hall Jamieson has argued, Reagan earned his reputation as "The Great Communicator" by mastering the visual grammar of television:
Reagan's success as a communicator is attributable to his understanding of the medium that more than any other dominates our lives. The notion that Reagan is to television what FDR was to radio is a commonplace, but one that camouflages an identifiable amalgam of skills that, in contemporary politics, gave Reagan his rhetorical edge. To a visual digestive medium, Reagan brings a talent for creating both verbal and nonverbal synoptic vignettes that capture his central claims. Better than any modern president, Reagan translated words into memorable televisual pictures. . . . Reagan's visual sense complements the conversational, intimate style through which he conveys a consistent public sense of himself and speaks through television in its own natural language.
George H.W. Bush was no Ronald Reagan, and he struggled with campaign speaking. Where Reagan looked relaxed and comfortable on the campaign trail, Bush often looked stiff and anxious. Words that might have flowed effortlessly out of Ronald Reagan sounded wooden and forced coming from George H.W. Bush. Peggy Noonan, who wrote for both Reagan and Bush, claims that both former presidents worked hard on their speeches and collaborated closely with their speech writers. Yet Bush did not seem comfortable delivering hard-hitting attacks or talking about his personal life. Noonan wrote a number of memorable, Reagan-like lines for Bush's acceptance speech at the 1988 Republican National Convention, including his references to a "kinder, gentler nation" and a "thousand points of light." Generally, however, Bush's style was more bureaucratic than inspirational or poetic. While an impressive communicator in other interpersonal or smaller group settings, Bush struggled to deliver campaign speeches with conviction and passion.
Bush's speech at
Bush was introduced by legendary
Departing from his prepared text, Bush tossed out a number of one-liners,
mostly referring to
Bush finally returned to his prepared text in what is the seventh
paragraph of the printed transcript of the speech. Yet even as written, Bush's
statement of purpose was awkward and vague: "I came here to talk a bit about
where we've been, and where we are, and what I want to do to get us where we've
got to be" (7). Bush continued to stray from the economic theme of the
speech as he recalled a plaque he had seen in Old Main and reminded the audience
of his own military service: "You know, as I was walking through the Old Main I
saw a plaque on the wall. Not too shiny, but then again, it didn't need to be.
It was dedicated to 374 Americans who died in World War II. All from
Perhaps Bush hoped that reminding voters of his foreign policy
credentials would distract them from their economic woes. Drawing a contrast he
made throughout the speech, he spoke of himself as the optimistic, forward-looking leader
who had helped Ronald Reagan win the Cold War. Indeed, Bush imitated Reagan
throughout the speech, portraying himself as the confident and patriotic
alternative to defeatist Democrats like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Like
Carter, Bush implied,
Taking shots at his opponent, Bush talked like the underdog, not the
confident incumbent. Speaking in "gunfight" metaphors, he compared criticizing
Ironically, a heckler inspired one of the most specific policy statements in Bush's speech. Responding to the heckler's taunts about the administration's AIDS policies, Bush left his prepared text, first asking whether they could "get this guy to shut up," then breaking into an impromptu defense of his administration. "We have spent $4.3 billion on that," Bush shot back; "I have asked now for $4.9 million." Researchers would not rest until they found a cure for AIDS, Bush assured the crowd, and "so we care about it." "It's a terrible curse," he concluded, and the heckler had raised "a legitimate question" (11).
Returning to his prepared text, Bush then introduced the first of the six
differences between him and his opponent: their view of what makes the economy
grow. Recalling his speech two weeks earlier in
At no point in his speech did Bush elaborate on those thirteen
initiatives. Nor did he explain in specific terms how his economic philosophy
differed from that of his opponent. Portraying
Bush marveled at the irony, suggesting that
You know, it's crazy. Some of y'all
are studying history, and it's a crazy thing. At the very moment when
In Bush's history lesson, the complexities of a new global economic order were reduced to the Cold War competition between communism and the free world.
Bush's second major difference with
Now, listen to this 'cause this is
factual. My opponent disagrees. In
I knew you wouldn't like that one--mobile homes, cable TV, used cars, airplanes, coal--he was even taxing food stamps until the federal government forced him to stop. Now, I guess that's why (Boo-o-o!).
And that's the truth. I guess that's why yesterday my subconscious spoke up--and by accident--and it was an accident, down there in the South--I actually called him "Governor Taxes.'' And I'm sorry, I apologize. (Bush! Bush! Bush!). (23-25)
Not surprisingly, Bush's line about taxing beer brought
"boos" from his audience of college students, yet it also proved an embarrassing
mistake. Noting that Republicans also supported taxes on beer and gasoline, one
White House aide had warned against using the line when the draft speech was
vetted--but to no avail. NBC's Bob Kur noticed, however, and called the whole
country's attention to the mistake in his report on the rally: "What Bush did
not tell students at
The third theme of Bush's speech, government spending, received short
shrift, principally because Bush skipped over a whole paragraph of details in
his prepared text. Beginning with the blanket assertion that
Returning to his prepared text, Bush moved to the fourth difference
between Clinton and himself: their views on "opening foreign markets to American
goods." According to Bush, Clinton waffled on free trade, while Bush brought the
same "can do" spirit to trade that he brought to all other issues: "And I
believe in free trade because I believe that when trade is free and fair,
America beats the competition fair and square--anytime" (28). Of course, Bush
could not accuse
In the prepared text of his speech, Bush was next supposed to discuss the fifth difference between himself and Clinton: their views on government red tape, mandates, and monopolies. The prepared text had Bush declaring himself the friend of "the little guy with a big dream," claiming that Americans wasted 5.3 billion hours "just trying to keep up with federal regulations," and dramatizing the magnitude of that statistic by comparing it to "watching every pro football game on television back-to-back for the next twelve millions years." In the speech he actually delivered, however, Bush skipped all of that, perhaps because the speech was already running long. Or perhaps the material was cut because a White House aide had questioned the statistics during the vetting of the speech. Whatever the explanation, the speech, as actually delivered, ended up addressing only five of the "six definitive differences" that speech writer Grossman had hoped to illuminate.
That left Bush to conclude with one last issue distinguishing himself and
Clinton: the conservative "hot button" issue of legal reform. Describing the
legal system as "out of control and headed for a crash," Bush claimed that
Americans spent "up to $200 billion" a year "in direct costs to lawyers" and
declared: "Now, that's got to stop" (30). Portraying
Bush's speech at PSU concluded with tough talk and a patriotic
celebration, as the President chastised
In the final analysis, Bush's speech at
According to Matt Herb of
Illustrated, a publication focusing on Penn State sports, Bush's speech at
Old Main demonstrated his understanding of one of the "first rules" of public
speaking--"know your audience"--with its emphasis on the "two subjects
most dear to the student-dominated crowd: football and beer." Yet reporter
Jim MacKinnon of the Centre Daily Times offered a different assessment,
describing the speech as "long on attacks on Democratic candidate Bill Clinton"
but "short on major economic proposals." Bush's patriotic
bravado may have played well before his audience of invited supporters, but it
did little to answer criticisms that he lacked new ideas. Bush also may have
been guilty of misrepresenting
Bush's speech at
Legacy of Bush's Speech at
George H.W. Bush's speech at Penn State not only sheds light on the
shortcomings of his 1992 reelection campaign, but also on some of the issues and
controversies surrounding politics and free speech on college campuses. Outraged
by Paterno's appearance and certain other aspects of the rally, Democratic
politicians, alumni, free speech activists, and others complained to Penn State
President Joab Thomas about what they perceived as an official endorsement of
the Bush campaign. Responding to the complaints, the university admitted no
wrongdoing and failed to address the larger issues surrounding campaign events
on campus. Like many other universities,
The controversy over Bush's appearance at
The controversy continued the night before Bush arrived, when the College
Republicans tried to decorate the front of Old Main with a
Unfortunately, university security personnel either misunderstood the
policy or deliberately ignored it. Instead of confiscating all signs, they
selectively enforced the "no signs" policy, letting Bush supporters keep their
signs while denying signs to others. In addition, critics complained that
protestors were kept far from the stage and treated roughly by university
police. Adding to the controversy, of course, was the fact that Joe Paterno had
introduced the President, and that
Pictures and videotape from the event suggest that the critics had a
point. Even the limited view provided by the videotape reveals a large crowd
cheering the President while waving little American flags or pro-Bush banners.
Clearly visible behind Bush is the small
Given all that, it hardly comes as a surprise that letters from alumni
and others opposed to Bush flooded into President Joab Thomas' office. Alumnus Paul
Kovach wrote that he was "ashamed" of Penn State for allowing Paterno--"the most
visible spokesperson of the University"--to introduce Bush, and he was also
"very upset" that protestors were kept away from the President. "So much for
free speech," Kovach wrote in his letter to Thomas. Similarly, Jane A. Gray, a
1973 graduate, objected in the "strongest possible terms" to the banner
displaying both the
I am very upset that your college has taken a political stand!!! My niece and nephew both graduated from Penn State--were married on the grounds near the college--other nieces and nephews showed interest in attending when they become eligible in 2 years--but--as one of their relatives, that partially helps support their tuition, I have told all the parents they will receive NO financial help from us, if any of them choose Penn State!!!
Thomas also heard from state Democratic leaders. In a UPI dispatch,
Senate Minority Whip J. William Lincoln (D-Fayette) was quoted as calling the
rally a "disgrace," while Senator Patrick Stapleton (D-Indiana) even hinted that
it might "adversely affect the university's relationship with the
legislature." In a letter
to Thomas, Senate Minority Leader Robert Mellow (D-Lackawanna) called the effort
to "hype" the Republican campaign "absolutely reprehensible" and demanded that
Paterno not be "allowed to use
Even the Central Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Civil Liberties
Union weighed in on the controversy. In a long letter to Thomas, local ACLU
president Margaret T. Young cited news reports of "racial abuse" against
anti-Bush protestors and noted that one of the ACLU's own board members had her
Clinton-Gore sign confiscated by "a man she believed to be a member of the Young
Republicans." As such, the rally "raised important civil liberties questions,"
and Young demanded answers to a series of questions about whether protestors
were censored, the behavior of the police, and the legitimacy of a "VIP" section
packed with "several hundred" cheering supporters. The letter also criticized
Paterno's role in the event, arguing that the university violated the "equal
access" rule when its "most celebrated campus figure" praised the President in
front of "so many impressionable students." Furthermore, "the
In responding to the controversy, Thomas drew from a list of "debriefing
points" prepared by university counsel Delbert J. McQuaide and a committee of
university officials, essentially denying that the university had handled the
event badly. For those who complained about Paterno's role, the university had
this response: "Coach Paterno exercised his First Amendment rights, . . . Mr.
Paterno did not represent the university, or speak for the university, its
President, or its Board of Trustees." In response to questions about the
participation of the Nittany Lion, the Blue Band, or the cheerleaders, the
university offered a similar explanation: all were invited to
participate, and their participation was voluntary. Regarding the
The university had similar responses to the various free speech issues raised by critics of the event. The question of a VIP section had been reviewed carefully by legal counsel, the university explained, and it was determined that student groups had a right to reserve areas for VIP seating at events they sponsor--as they had for earlier campus visits by Hillary Clinton and Jerry Brown. Responding to complaints about the confiscation of anti-Bush signs, the university admitted that there had been some "confusion," as University Security initially agreed to enforce a "no signs/no sticks" policy, but then realized that a large number of Bush signs already "had been placed on the ground in the restricted area." After consultations with legal counsel, a decision was made to "reverse enforcement" of the no sign policy. Finally, the university dismissed reports of "rough behavior" against protestors, deeming the crowd control problem "not nearly as bad" as what one might expect at a "high school wrestling or football challenge." The protestors had not been marginalized or silenced, the university insisted, noting that the media had, in fact, "reported on this anti-Bush presence."
By treating the Bush controversy as a public relations problem, the
university failed to address the real issues at hand: What are the rights of
partisan political groups and protestors on campus? And what should be the role
of the university in hosting and providing security for campaign events? Not
surprisingly, then, the same controversies arose during later visits to campus
by presidential candidates and their surrogates. During the 2000 campaign, for
example, Republican vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney made a brief stop at
Not surprisingly, the protestors expressed outrage at their treatment,
calling the university's actions a "blatant infringement" on their First
Amendment rights. Ali Altman,
a vice president of the College Democrats at
In 2004, security concerns further complicated the issues surrounding campaign events on campus. In the wake of 9/11, political events in general were more tightly controlled, particularly those involving the incumbent president and vice president, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Tickets to Bush-Cheney events were often distributed only to those who donated to the campaign, and "scores" of people were "evicted or denied entry to Bush campaign events" across the country. In some cases, those seeking tickets to Bush-Cheney events were asked to sign loyalty oaths, consenting to public release of their names as supporters of President Bush.
Thus, the "defining feature" of campaign 2004, as Jeffrey MacDonald
reported, became "security so tight that candidates seldom hear or see their
critics in person." In
Charleston, West Virginia, one couple was arrested and jailed on trespassing
charges for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts and refusing to relocate to a designated
"free speech zone." In
Neither presidential candidate visited
Thus, the debate over politics and free speech on campus continues, not
Political cynicism and apathy among young people are serious problems in
As Daniel M. Shea has argued in the Chronicle of Higher Education, campus visits by political candidates can be exciting events, stirring political passions and "fostering civic and political engagement." For small colleges in particular, a visit by a presidential candidate cannot only "invigorate" students politically, but also be "good for the wider community, improving town-gown relations." Yet if such events are closed, partisan rallies, they "violate a core tenet of democratic society--the open and robust exchange of ideas in a public setting." Candidates may be "anxious to stifle public debate, to control their message and artfully manipulate news content," but institutions that "strive to cultivate responsible citizens" should refuse to be complicit in that process. As Shea concludes:
Who, if not colleges, will challenge those undemocratic impulses? Colleges are not obligated to provide an arena and a bullhorn for a select few. . . . Our drive to engage students cannot trump our obligation to foster a robust exchange of ideas. . . . In the end it boils down to this: Closed, ticketed events are inconsistent with the mission of higher education and with the spirit of democracy. Candidates on the campus? You bet. But with no strings attached.
Last updated—11 May 2007
J. Michael Hogan is Professor of
Communication Arts and Sciences and Co-Director of the Center for Civic
Engagement and Democratic Deliberation at the
 Milton C. Cummings, "Political Change since the New Deal: The 1992 Presidential Election in Historical Perspective," in American Presidential Elections: Process, Policy, and Political Change, ed. Harvey L. Schantz (Albany: State University of New York, 1996), 64.
George Bush Unravel?" The Economist,
Robert Greene, The
Presidency of George Bush, American Presidency Series (
 George Bush and Victor Gold, Looking Forward (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 43-46.
Herbert Walker Bush (
 Ibid., 12.
 Bush and Gold, Looking Forward, 80.
 Wicker, George Herbert Walker Bush, 26, 32-33, 39, 42, 45.
 Ibid., 61-62.
 Greene, The Presidency of George Bush, 9.
 David Mervin, George Bush and the Guardianship Presidency (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998).
 Michael Duffy and Dan Goodgame, Marching in Place: The Status Quo Presidency of George Bush (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 20-21.
J. Barilleaux and Mark J. Rozell, Power and Prudence: The Presidency of George H.W. Bush,
1st ed. (
 Ibid., 96-98.
 Duffy and Goodgame, Marching in Place, 165.
 Douglas C. Foyle, Counting the Public In: Presidents, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy, Power, Conflict, and Democracy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 217.
 Peter Goldman, et al., Quest for the Presidency 1992 (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1994), 14-15.
 Ibid., 169.
 Cummings, "Political Change since the New Deal: The 1992 Presidential Election in Historical Perspective," 64.
H. W. Bush, "1988 Republican National Convention Acceptance Address," available
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Everything You Think You Know About Politics... And Why
You're Wrong (
 Greene, The Presidency of George Bush, 83.
 See "If They're Serious About the Deficit [Editorial]," New York Times, May 15, 1990; Kevin Phillips, "Forget the Tax Mantra - the Key Is Performance Economy [Opinion]," Los Angeles Times, June 3, 1990; and Tom Wicker, "Don't Read My Lips [News Commentary]," New York Times, March 12, 1990.
 Barilleaux and Rozell, Power and Prudence: The Presidency of George H.W. Bush, 35.
 Greene, The Presidency of George Bush, 86.
 Ibid., 87.
 Mervin, George Bush and the Guardianship Presidency, 156.
 Jamieson, Everything You Think You Know About Politics, 34.
 Greene, The Presidency of George Bush, 88.
 Cummings, "Political Change since the New Deal," 64.
 Goldman, et al., Quest for the Presidency 1992, 14-15.
Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, Presidents as Candidates: Inside the White House for the
Presidential Campaign (
Richard S. Conley, "George Bush and the Public Presidency: The Limits of
Legislative Leadership," in Honor and Loyalty: Inside the Politics of the Bush White
House, eds. Leslie D. Furman and Rosanna Perotti (
 Tenpas, Presidents as Candidates, 33.
 Ibid., 274.
Clinton and Al Gore, Putting People First: How We Can All Change
 George Stephanopoulos, et al., The War Room (S.I.: Vidmark Entertainment, 1994), video recording.
B. Rapoport and Walter J. Stone, Three's a Crowd: The Dynamic of Third Parties, Ross Perot,
and Republican Resurgence (
McDonald, "By His Own Rules," Maclean's,
Perot: Ears 2, The Return," The Economist,
Fineman, "What Does He Want," Newsweek,
Solomon, "Perot Run a Long Shot, but He Has the Money," The
 Goldman, et al., Quest for the Presidency 1992, 454.
We Hardly Knew Ye," Christian Science Monitor [Editorial],
 Goldman, et al., 544.
George Bush Unravel?," The Economist,
H. W. Bush, as quoted in Michael Wines, "The 1992 Campaign: Republicans, Bush
Says Economy Is Not as Bad as People Think," New York Times,
Balz and Ann Devroy, "
 John Hohenberg, The Bill Clinton Story: Winning the Presidency (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1994), 110-111.
 Hohenberg, The Bill Clinton Story: Winning the Presidency, 101.
H. W. Bush, "Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session with the Economic Club of
"Bush's Plan Is Old Stuff, Says
 Hohenberg, The Bill Clinton Story: Winning the Presidency, 104.
 Ibid., 105.
Living Room Candidate, 1992:
 Among these would be Abraham Lincoln's "Cooper Union" speech, William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold," Franklin Roosevelt's nominating speech for Al Smith, Richard Nixon's "Checkers Speech," and John F. Kennedy's "Houston Ministerial Speech."
for example, Roderick P. Hart, Campaign Talk: Why Campaigns are Good For Us
 See Thomas E. Patterson, Out of Order (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 3-15.
Theodore H. White,
 Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Eloquence in an Electronic Age: The Transformation of Political Speechmaking (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 119.
 Peggy Noonan, What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era (New York: Ivy Books, 1990), 309-329.
H.W. Bush, "1988 Republican National Convention Acceptance Address," American Rhetoric,
online at: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/georgehbush1988rnc.htm
Materials gathered for the speech included research on significant historical
events on the day of the speech, September 23, 1992, input solicited from the
Penn State football office and University Relations, and information about--and
writings by--the man scheduled to introduce President Bush, coach Joe Paterno.
Included in the speech writing file for the speech at the Bush Library are facts
and figures about Coach Paterno's coaching record, including a season-by-season
chart of his teams' records and bowl games, and an article by Paterno published
magazine in January 1990, "What Virgil Taught Me about Football." See Office
of Speechwriting, Series: Speech Files, Backup, Chron. Files, 1989-1993, Box
 In the
files for the speech in the Bush Library, there are multiple copies of a second
draft of the speech that had been circulated to some 25 White House staffers,
asking for responses from about a dozen of them. The files include edited
versions of the text sent back by Scowcroft and Walden, who was identified as
the Associate Legal Counsel to the President. See Office of Speechwriting,
Series: Speech Files, Backup, Chron. Files, 1989-1993, Box 180,
Jennifer Grossman to Steve Provost, "Memorandum for the President,"
Jim MacKinnon, "20,000 Hear Bush Speak," Centre Daily Times,
 In his introduction of
Bush, Paterno praised Bush, declaring: "The impact that George Bush has had on
history will not be understood for generations to come." He dismissed fears that
the nation faced darker days ahead, envisioning a return of those "days of
individual responsibility" when people cared for one another and their
communities. Emphasizing that
 All of the
remaining passages from Bush's
 Jennifer Grossman to Steve Provost, "Memorandum for the President."
in Howard Kurtz, "Winning the TV Screen but Losing the Big Picture: Voters Seem
Immune to Bush Attacks on
 Jennifer Grossman, "Presidential Remarks: Penn State University, Wednesday, September 23, 1992, 1:30 P.M.," Draft Two, in Office of Speechwriting, Series: Speech Files, Backup, Chron. Files, 1989-1993, Box 180, Folder Penn State University 9/23/92 [OA 7564], George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, College Station, Texas.
 In response to the 2nd draft circulated among White House aides, there appears to have been questions raised both about the 5.3 billion hours figure and the translation of that figure into years watching football. One copy of the draft in the speech writing files of the Bush Presidential Library has handwritten emendations changing the 5.3 billion figure to 6.3 and twelve million years to 268,000 years.
 Jennifer Grossman to Steve Provost, "Memorandum for the President."
Herb, "Bush a Crowd-Pleaser in
 MacKinnon, "20,000 Hear Bush Speak," A1.
 "Official PSU Response – Debriefing Points," Joab Thomas Papers, 1984-1996, M231, Box 21, Special Collections Library, University Libraries, the Pennsylvania State University Archives, State College, Pennsylvania.
 "Democrats Angry Over Bush Visit to Penn State," UPI dispatch, September 25, 1992, Joab Thomas Papers, 1984-1996, M231, Box 21, Special Collections Library, University Libraries, the Pennsylvania State University Archives, State College, Pennsylvania.
Letters, Joab Thomas Papers, 1984-1996, M231,
quotations from letters are taken from the Pennsylvania State University
Archives, letters from alumni and concerned
"Democrats Angry Over Bush Visit to
J. Mellow, "Letter to Dr. Joab Thomas, President,"
 Margaret T. Young, "Letter to Dr Joab L. Thomas," October 20, 1992, Joab Thomas Papers, 1984-1996, M231, Box 21, Special Collections Library, University Libraries, the Pennsylvania State University Archives, State College, Pennsylvania.
 "Official PSU Response – Debriefing Points," Joab Thomas Papers, 1984-1996, M231, Box 21, Special Collections Library, University Libraries, the Pennsylvania State University Archives, State College, Pennsylvania.
 Joab L. Thomas, "Letter to the Honorable Robert J. Mellow," October 16, 1992," Joab Thomas Papers, 1984-1996, M231, Box 21, Special Collections Library, University Libraries, the Pennsylvania State University Archives, State College, Pennsylvania.
visited in August of the previous year, while
 "Official PSU Response – Debriefing Points," Joab Thomas Papers.
 Heather Cook, Elly Spinweber, and Alex Weininger, "Cheney Rallies Penn State," The Daily Collegian, November 3, 2000 available at http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2000/11/11-03-00tdc/11-03-00dnews-1.asp (accessed on January 17, 2007).
 Alison Kepner, "Students Protest Arrival of Vice Presidential Candidate," The Daily Collegian, November 3, 2000, available at available at http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2000/11/11-03-00tdc/11-03-00dnews-2.asp (accessed on January 17, 2007).
Mazzaferro, "Letter to the Editor: Removal of Sign at Speech an Infringement of
Rights," The Daily
(accessed on January 17, 2007).
Spinweber, and Weininger, "
 Kepner, "Students Protest Arrival of Vice Presidential Candidate," available athttp://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2000/11/11-03-00tdc/11-03-00dnews-2.asp.
Eggen, "Policing is Aggressive at Bush Events," The Washington
Milbank, "Republicans Sign Along the Dotted Line,"
Jeffrey MacDonald, "A Close Eye--and Tight Grip--on Campaign Protesters," Christian Science
 Ibid. Also see Eggen, "Policing is Aggressive at Bush Events," A7.
 Eggen, "Policing is Aggressive at Bush Events," A7.
 MacDonald, "A Close Eye--and Tight Grip--on Campaign Protesters," 11.
Heinz's speech in the Schwab Auditorium on September 16 was a ticketed event,
and despite a small demonstration outside the venue there were no reports of
disruptions or arrests. See Mike Joseph, "Heinz Kerry Rallies Local Dems," Centre Daily Times,
 See Allison Busacca, "Tickets Available Today for Bush Speech," The Daily Collegian, October 28, 2004, available at http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/10/10-28-04tdc/10-28-04dnews-11.asp (accessed January 19, 2007); and Drew Curly, "Former President Bush's Rally Sold Out," The Daily Collegian, Penn State, October 29, 2004, available at http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/10/10-29-04tdc/10-29-04dnews-08.asp (accessed January 17, 2007).
Curly, "Bush Sr. Rallies to Support Son," The Daily Collegian,
Nissley, "Students Say They Were Turned Away at the Door," Centre Daily Times,
Steve Larese, "Bush-Backers-Only Policy Riles Voters at RNC Rallies,"
 Daniel M. Shea, "When Candidates Visit," Chronicle of Higher Education, August 2006, B20.