This is not Baburin, Baburin right with a mustache.

Thank you very much for noticing the silly error. I've replaced several images, including the one you referred to.

"Union of Sovereign Well-to-Do Republics". I bet they're either extremely rich or extremely poor, since their official name is boasting about their (supposed) wealth.

(that's what "cостоятельный" means in Russian)

Since it likely won't be clarified soon (in-universe, we are still in late 1992) I am offering a partial clarification ahead of time.

ITTL the rest of the world initially struggles how to translate it since restoring the CCCP acronym was literally a driving factor during mid-nineties (the non-socialist runner-up was стабильный - stable). Original attempts were to translate it to English were Sustainable or Stable but were abandoned as it did not capture the full political usage of the word. It came to have its own special meaning, similar to concepts of gosudarstvo or soviet. Upon diplomatic suggestion, the word was adopted into other languages wholesale in part to not lose its nuances (stable, prosperous, sustainable) although some countries like France do not follow this rule with interesting results.

Originally during the planning of the timeline, I intended the name to eventually be the Union of Sovereign Stable Republics, based on the research that identified the word stable as especially frequent in nineties Russian political discourse.
 
Newcomer here, can't help but notice the orders of threadmarks are a bit wacky...?

But otherwise, great TL! Man, Yugoslavia really was a clusterfuck, wasn't it?

Marc A
 
S02 E24 - Apathy, Scandals and Sharpshooting on the Campaign Trail '92 - VI.
Xojx1O2.png


______________________________


Apathy, Scandals and Sharpshooting on the Campaign Trail '92 - VI.
______________________________


Br87kaH.jpg

Bush opens the RNC on Monday, August 17th, 1992
______________________________

'What’s wrong with being a boring kind of guy?'

--President George Bush responding to criticism about his personality, April 27th, 1988 [1]
______________________________

tHWtVK9.jpg

the son and granddaughter of president Bush, RNC, August 1992


That One August

Well, I have to say, my father was really exhausted that summer. And the campaign was different. The campaign was no doubt a family business. But 1992 was much different than 1988. For one, Atwater was dead and people in the campaign tried to replicate his tactics with no success. I actually tried to steer dad away from such tactics and he admitted he dislikes them as well, but the true and honest way hasn't worked in politics for a long time. The Democrats forced dad to break his pledge and the nation would not forgive him, but just pointing to the control of Congress did not work.

The LA riots figured prominently in the media, but it didn't seem to make a dent in the polls, even when Brown called my father responsible for the verdict. We hoped the issue would highlight the extreme liberal side of the Democratic ticket but this did not seem to matter. Indeed, Baker warned my father that he was watching the race and felt our tactics fed the dead Perot campaign. Perot was apparently a safe choice for everyone who thought themselves as a moderate on something and Baker believed that it is only a matter of time before the entire campaign implodes, leaving either us or the Dems as the sane choice.

I was not involved in the dirtier tactics, such as slinging mud as Tsongas' health record or booking all venues in Texas up to the election, but I knew of them. Our campaign was much better than that of Perot. Secret service routinely noted private investigators hired by Perot are swooping around our homes and digging up dirt. They accused me od draft dodging, dug up my DUI, even insinuated not only was I still drinking, but dad was too - that was why he threw up in Japan or fell down. It seemed that Perot had a personal vendetta against us and Laura asked me why is Perot not so hard on the Democrats? Perot had tried to ingratiate in every Republican administration in recent memory. But this was not our greatest issue.

I remember a discussion just days before the Convention in 1992 when someone asked why was Pat Buchanan allowed to open the convention - didn't he support Bob [Robertson] when he tried to run against us? Father, who was in the process of having his cast refitted, said that what his years in the Republican party made him learn is to be afraid of the traditional voter. We have always been believers, but there have been many who felt [Bush] sullied Reagan's name. In 1988 Dad choose a running mate to sate the base but also provide a bridge to the future. While media harangued Quayle, the base believed in him more than they did dad who had served with Reagan for years. After the abortive primaries riot, too many of us felt that the Reagan endorsement might not be enough. Perot was still quite appealing despite his support of abortion among other things.

The understanding was that Buchanan was supposed to rally the conservative base behind dad as dad helped rally the moderates behind Reagan years prior. I've heard otherwise, but we believed the tax issues were the biggest gripe the base had and the Democrats were responsible for that anyway. The cultural issues were seen as a kind of issue that is always mentioned as important but not really decisive.

I do believe that we made mistakes then and there. We underestimated Tsongas. We underestimated Perot. We underestimated Buchanan. But most of all we misunderestimated how dad was exhausted by all of this. Mom frequently asked the rest of us to have him active less. The leg was not healing properly and he spent a lot of time trying to campaign while being briefed on the world issues. Perhaps if he chose not to run, he could have had years to recuperate, and then run and won in 1996. But it would mean admitting defeat and our family always had high demands placed upon us.

--George Bush, manager of Texas Rangers, 1998 interview

______________________________

'My dog Millie knows more about foreign affairs than these two bozos.'

--attributed to President George Bush on the campaign trail, 1992 [2]
______________________________

HKF1lIJ.jpg

RNC, August 1992
______________________________

Circumstances, not Leadership


It is fair to say the former president George Bush has been lionized by his supporters in the past few years, presenting him as a victim of circumstance and the man for the job. This interpretation takes quite a few creative liberties, feeding into the myth created by 10/15/1992 and playing fast and loose with facts.

It is indeed true that George Bush's approval reached 90% following the victory over Iraq. But this disregards the deep divide the war had caused in America. Many incorrectly believe that this approval rating scared away Democratic stars like Cuomo or Gephardt. The public trust in them was gone, as seen in their pyrrhic victories just a few years prior. The same was likely to happen to Bush. Despite all his plans for a kindler, gentler nation and the new world order, the nation did not believe him he is dealing with the recession. The Bush campaign desperately dug themselves into the issue of statesmanship by trying to demonstrate his leadership while avoiding any question on American's culpability in foreign crises.

Indeed, his supporters will point out that by the time of the election economy has basically recovered and the world situation required a strong statesman. The lackluster campaign was the result of Bush devoting an enormous amount of time to NAFTA, Russia, and other crises, instead of campaigning. This is simply not true. Bush spent a lot of time on the road, and it is well documented how tired he looked by the media. Indeed, Secretary of State Baker had been running the foreign policy which in the mind of the Oval Office doubled as nearly as good as running the campaign.

The myth that Russia destroyed Bush is a romantic one which seems to paint Bush as a hero who sacrificed his own career for the good of the country and yet in vain. In truth, his expertise was just a lot of experience with a spotty record of lessons learned. Bush was still implicated in the Iran-Contra affair and like Reagan weaseled out by apparently not knowing anything. The Kuwait affair was likely the result of confused signals Washington gave to Saddam only for America being forced to turn against him and then not finish the job, leaving the problem open for his successor. This folly repeated itself in Yugoslavia when NATO was forced to act too late, only after the country disintegrated and declare victory after operations failed to capture Adzic, stop further conflict or ensure peace. Months after the supposed peacekeeping success artillery shells fell on the Bosnian cities killing civilians.

The famous Bush Doctrine was mostly denied instead of confirmed by the White House as media speculated every crisis will now be resolved with military action. President Bush famously lost his nerve on the campaign trail just weeks before the convention and asked reporters if they "are out of your mind?" after kept being asked if the US is going to restore Haitian president Aristide by force. President Bush's white whale, democratic Russia, is as real as the original Moby Dick. Multiple sources have confirmed Bush considered Yeltsin a transitional leader [3] and paid little attention to Russian please for economic assistance.

The Yeltsinites counted on America to help with economic help, just as in the wake of the Second World War, counting on the fact that massive military cuts were already planned for upcoming budgets. The pleas fell on deaf ears as Baker was more concerned with issues such as loose nukes in Ukraine. Colin Powell revealed in the late nineties that prior to August, Bush mused that a military coup might be regretful but necessary in order to stabilize Russia, noting many such cases where the outcome was beneficial in the long run like Greece, Chile, and other countries. The other white whale, NAFTA, prompted an unlikely challenge from Ross Perot whose campaign despite all bizarre events was basically a single issue protest against the trade agreement. It is fair to say Perot was the one to save NAFTA by tainting opposition to it with so much baggage that one could not dare to be lumped with the man who believed Vietnamese communists are arming Black Panthers with Serbian uranium to poison him and prevent him from freeing American captives from Russia.

Much has been made of Bush's decision to address the nation after the abrupt nuclear test in Russia during the initial days of Raskol and many feel that it was a political move, calculated to save a catastrophic convention by diverting the attention of the nation to his one strength and rejuvenating Cold war fears. It worked for a while - Bush topped 50% of the votes for a while in polling, but the numbers soon dipped back as the Democrats started to dismantle every claim Bush campaign made his leadership was "tempered and tested in difficulty." The second issue was the Bush had a generally consistent positive approval rating but Americans believed others could do his job better. Republicans simply failed to understand this - it is not that Bush was considered a bad president but a president who was not better than the alternative.

The results of the ABC poll in the aftermath of the scathing critique by Senator Biden (D-DE) implied that one single articulated critique tore down Republican polling by four points. Paraphrasing his words, Bush was indeed considered to be "dealing well with problems he was causing himself, but should not Americans choose a man who simply does not create problems?".

--The New York Times, 1995 opinion piece
______________________________

'We're going to keep trying to strengthen the American family. To make them more like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons.'
--
President George Bush, repeating his earlier January quip at the RNC, August, 1992 [4]
______________________________

'Hey, we're just like the Waltons. We're praying for an end to the Depression, too.'

--Bart Simpson, S0301 "Stark Raving Dad, "January 30th, 1992 [5]
______________________________


0rMNGV5.jpg

RNC, August 1992
______________________________

Well, we took the long way home, but we finally got here.

And I want to congratulate President Bush, and remove any doubt about where we stand: The primaries are over, the heart is strong again, and the Buchanan brigades are enlisted–all the way to a great comeback victory in November.

Like many of you last month, I watched that giant masquerade ball at Madison Square Garden–where 20,000 radicals and liberals came dressed up as moderates and centrists–in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history.

One by one, the prophets of doom appeared at the podium. The Reagan decade, they moaned, was a terrible time in America; and the only way to prevent even worse times, they said, is to entrust our nation’s fate and future to the party that gave us McGovern, Mondale, Carter and Michael Dukakis.

No way, my friends. The American people are not going to buy back into the failed liberalism of the 1960s and ’70s–no matter how slick the package in 1992.

The malcontents of Madison Square Garden notwithstanding, the 1980s were not terrible years. They were great years. You know it. I know it. And the only people who don’t know it are the carping critics who sat on the sidelines of history, jeering at one of the great statesmen of modern time.

Out of Jimmy Carter’s days of malaise, Ronald Reagan crafted the longest peacetime recovery in US history–3 million new businesses created, and 20 million new jobs.

Under the Reagan Doctrine, one by one, the communist dominos began to fall. First, Grenada was liberated, by US troops. Then, the Red Army was run out of Afghanistan, by US weapons. In Nicaragua, the Marxist regime was forced to hold free elections–by Ronald Reagan’s contra army–and the communists were thrown out of power. Bush has faithfully followed the work of his mentor and routed the communists away from Yugoslavia, allowing democracy to prosper in the country.

Have they forgotten? It was under our party that the Berlin Wall came down, and Europe was reunited. It was under our party that the Soviet Empire collapsed, and the captive nations broke free.

It is said that each president will be recalled by posterity–with but a single sentence. George Washington was the father of our country. Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union. And Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. And it is time my old colleagues, the columnists, and commentators, looking down on us tonight from their anchor booths and skyboxes, gave Ronald Reagan the credit he deserves–for leading America to victory in the Cold War.

Most of all, Ronald Reagan made us proud to be Americans again. We never felt better about our country, and we never stood taller in the eyes of the world.

But we are here, not only to celebrate but to nominate. And an American president has many, many roles.

He is our first diplomat, the architect of American foreign policy. And which of these two men is more qualified for that role? George Bush has been UN ambassador, CIA director, envoy to China. As vice president, he co-authored the policies that won the Cold War. As president, George Bush presided over the liberation of Eastern Europe and the termination of the Warsaw Pact.

And Mr. Tsongas? Well, Paul Tsongas couldn't even get his party to rally around him, selling his soul to the criminal from California in the proverbial last minute ditch attempt to save himself from facing bankruptcy for a failed campaign. While George Bush fought the Second World War against the only enemies that could measure up to the evils of communism, Paul Tsongas avoided fighting against communism and went to work on his tan in the Carribean. His foreign policy is pretty much confined to the pictures of magazines he read through while dazed under a decade of heavy medication affecting his mind.

The presidency is also America’s bully pulpit, what Mr Truman called, “preeminently a place of moral leadership.” George Bush is a defender of right-to-life, and lifelong champion of the Judeo-Christian values and beliefs upon which this nation was built.

Mr Tsongas, however, has a different agenda.

At its top is unrestricted abortion on demand. When the Irish-Catholic governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, asked to say a few words on behalf of the 25 million unborn children destroyed since Roe v Wade, he was told there was no place for him at the podium of Democratic convention, no room at the inn.

Yet a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that convention and exult: “Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown represent the most pro-lesbian and pro-gay ticket in history.”
[6] And so they do.

Paul Tsongas fully intends to allow homosexuals to serve along with our courageous soldiers in the military, sapping their will to fight and humiliating the reputation of the only undefeated democratic power.

Paul Tsongas plans to draft a federal act, guaranteeing the right to abortion, oppose parents from weighing in with their knowledge and would take your dollars to pay for abortions to women who cannot afford their lifestyles or the consequences made from their errors.

Paul Tsongas supports school choice–but only for state-run schools. Parents who send their children to Christian schools, or Catholic schools, need not apply.

Elect me, and you get the change you need in politics, curbing down the power of the lobbyists, says Mr Tsongas. Yet he couldn't recognize his own campaign manager was scamming him out? Is this the man who we want to believe he'll "fix the system"? The system works, and this is what radical liberals decry.

His running mate, Jerry Brown, changes his positions as often as other people change socks. Neither of them could measure up to Reagan but now once our great president has served his country they seek to "fix" his errors. They want to stimulate the economy but can't agree on where and when they'll slash taxes.

Paul Tsongas is a devoted Christian, I have no doubt in that. But his beliefs align not with those of traditional Christianity but the Orthodox branch which has split off from traditional teachings over a millennia ago and which has been endorsed by the communist oppressors. Whereas Catholics in Poland and Czechoslovakia were persecuted for their beliefs and hunted down with tanks, the Orthodox Church was always left alone by the communist governments. I wonder why is that and what parallels can we see with secularism espoused by the liberals.

His running mate, Jerry Brown, studied Buddhism and claims politics is based on illusions. He is right in that Democratic politics is based on illusions and forced agendas.

Friends, this is radical ideology at its best. The agenda Tsongas & Brown would impose on America - abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat–that’s change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God’s country.

A president is also commander in chief, the man we empower to send sons and brothers, fathers and friends, to war.

George Bush was 17 when they bombed Pearl Harbor. He left his high school class, walked down to the recruiting office, and signed up to become the youngest fighter pilot in the Pacific war. And Mr Tsongas? When Mr Tsongas’s turn came in Vietnam, he went on the opposite side of the world, to hand out pamphlets in Ethiopia and then spend time on beaches in the West Indies.

Which of these two men has won the moral authority to call on Americans to put their lives at risk? I suggest, respectfully, it is the patriot and war hero, Navy Lieutenant J. G. George Herbert Walker Bush.

My friends, this campaign is about philosophy, and it is about character; and George Bush wins on both counts–going away; and it is time all of us came home and stood beside him.

And I am not speaking only of the man who spent the eighties unconscious from heavy medication. His running mate, Jerry Brown, ran three times for president, each time with a more bizarre campaign. He spoke of Buddhist economics. He spoke in favor of acupuncture. He spoke of benefits of meditation. Which continent does he want to run, America or Asia? Maybe, just maybe, he is not running against special interests because he doesn't want big money in politics, but because no one wants him in politics?

While the streets of California burned, Brown as governor spent millions to combat flies, flies I tell you!
[7] Does this seem like the kind of the man who would cut unnecessary spending? Will this be before or after launching flower power satellites? He appointed lesbians and gays to Californian courts while the people suffered from a declining economy.

The Democratic ticket does not have the support of their own party yet they plan to impose their beliefs, their laws, on the rest of America. They are fringe radicals who had to resort to trickery in order to not get the boot from their own Party, the Party of tax spenders like Ted Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson or of miserable sad sacks like Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis. They speak of renewal, but they do not want to renew America but impose their dangerous and unproven ideas on the rest of us.

Multiple times, Tsongas and Brown declared the “central organizing principle” of all governments must be: the environment and equality.

Wrong, liberals!

The central organizing principle of this republic is freedom. And from the ancient forests of Oregon, to the Inland Empire of California, America’s great middle class has got to start standing up to the environmental extremists who put insects, rats and birds ahead of families, workers and jobs.

One year ago, my friends, I could not have dreamt I would be here. I was then still just one of many panelists on what President Bush calls “those crazy Sunday talk shows.”

But I disagreed with the president; and so we challenged the president in the Republican primaries and fought as best we could. From February to June, he won 33 primaries. I can’t recall exactly how many we won.

But tonight I want to talk to the 3 million Americans who voted for me. I will never forget you, nor the great honor you have done me. But I do believe, deep in my heart, that the right place for us to be now–in this presidential campaign–is right beside George Bush. The party is our home; this party is where we belong. And don’t let anyone tell you any different.

Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him for freedom to choose religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women.

We stand with President Bush for right-to-life, and for voluntary prayer in the public schools, and against putting American women in combat. And we stand with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture.

We stand with President Bush in favor of federal judges who interpret the law as written, and against Supreme Court justices who think they have a mandate to rewrite our Constitution.

My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Tsongas & Brown are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so, we have to come home, and stand beside him.

My friends, in those 6 months, from Concord to California, I came to know our country better than ever before in my life, and I collected memories that will be with me always.

There was that day long ride through the great state of Georgia in a bus Vice President Bush himself had used in 1988–a bus they called Asphalt One. The ride ended with a 9:00 PM speech in front of a magnificent southern mansion, in a town called Fitzgerald.

There were the workers at the James River Paper Mill, in the frozen North Country of New Hampshire–hard, tough men, one of whom was silent, until I shook his hand. Then he looked up in my eyes and said, “Save our jobs!” There was the legal secretary at the Manchester airport on Christmas Day who told me she was going to vote for me, then broke down crying, saying, “I’ve lost my job, I don’t have any money; they're going to take away my daughter. What am I going to do?”

My friends, even in tough times, these people are with us. They don’t read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they came from the same schoolyards and playgrounds and towns as we did. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and our dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart.

They are our people. And we need to reconnect with them. We need to let them know we know they’re hurting. They don’t expect miracles, but they need to know we care.

There were the people of Hayfork, the tiny town high up in California’s Trinity Alps, a town that is now under a sentence of death because a federal judge has set aside 9 million acres for the habitat of the spotted owl–forgetting about the habitat of the men and women who live and work in Hay fork. And there were the brave people of Koreatown who took the worst of the LA riots, but still live the family values we treasure, and who still believe deeply in the American dream.

Friends, in those wonderful 25 weeks, the saddest days were the days of the bloody riot in LA, the worst in our history. But even out of that awful tragedy can come a message of hope.

Hours after the violence ended I visited the Army compound in south LA, where an officer of the 18th Cavalry, that had come to rescue the city, introduced me to two of his troopers. They could not have been 20 years old. He told them to recount their story.

They had come into LA late on the 2nd day, and they walked up a dark street, where the mob had looted and burned every building but one, a convalescent home for the aged. The mob was heading in, to ransack and loot the apartments of the terrified old men and women. When the troopers arrived, M-16s at the ready, the mob threatened and cursed, but the mob retreated. It had met the one thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, backed by courage.

Greater love than this hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friend. Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob from molesting old people they did not even know. And as they took back the streets of LA, block by block, so we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country. We've won the battle against the radical ideologies abroad, now we must win the war at home.

God bless you, and God bless America.”
[8]

--Pat Buchanan opening speech, Republican National Convention, August 1992

______________________________

"I think the speech probably sounded better in the original German."
--
humorist Milly Ivins [9]

______________________________

"I think the president would have liked more if the speech was only thirty minutes of him replaying the "no new taxes" pledge."
--
Arsenio Hall
______________________________

TbwWASe.jpg

RNC, August 1992


______________________________


Cultural Renewal not Cultural War

'The downright shameful, insidious attack launched against me only demonstrates that this election is not about policy or about men. My predecessor, governor Dukakis, faced disgusting attacks on his moral beliefs and four years after I am sad to report the situation has changed for the worst.

This election is about the democracy being taken over by the empty rhetoric that only vilifies opponents instead of finding common ground. I've faced a tough time in the polls not because I am orthodox, not because I am inexperienced and not because I am a radical.

I've faced it because the existing structures seem to shoehorn every American as either us or them. It is quite significant that the Republicans have said more words about morals rather than the decline of American manufacturing. Every attempt to resolve America's ills has been delayed either by World War, the Vietnam War or the Cold War. Finally, America is facing a time of peace and security, a time to reduce unnecessary spending and now we are facing a cultural war? Is America the land of freedom or of perpetual war against foes?

Since my earliest success in Massachusetts, I've noticed a troubling trend, of both parties moving away from compromise towards a groupthink. I've faced it in my own path to the nomination but I must say that while the Democratic party struggles to innovate the Republican party struggles to strangle the last few bastions of independent thought. President Bush is the same man who 12 years ago ran against the person whom he would join on the ticket and defend the economics he previously called voodoo economics. Republicans increasingly mention integrity but they leave no place to admit errors to negotiate between opposing sides. It is wise to remember that last time this happened in our great history nation fought a devastating war against itself, the economic scars of which are still felt today.

Unlike Republicans, I learn from past and look forward to future. As president, come January I will invite every Democrat and every Republican to participate in our new government. Partisan or ideological lines are not important - solutions are. There is no doubt a large number of people that feel alienated by this latest excess of my Republican opponents as well as the unfair rumors being spread about me and my campaign.

Americans should not be worried about the picture of carnage they are being warned of. America fought in defense three of the greatest conflicts in this century and always came out as the better country because of its willingness to unite the people and embrace renewal. America has been the shining light for people all over the world by offering the freedom to prosper, to create and leave a heritage to those we leave behind.

When I first became a senator the words liberal and conservative were not as derisive as they are today. We would quarrel inside our party and achieve compromises by working with similar minded people in the other party. For some reason, it is inconceivable to admit Democrats and Republicans still attend the same restaurants in the Washington D.C. The message Republicans are sending for quite some time is that you cannot trust a Democrat, a liberal, period. Millions are being spent to vilify the other party instead of investing in new jobs. My own party nearly fell prey to fear of not what it can offer to the American people but what it can be accused of by the Republicans. This is why Mr Perot enjoys substantial popularity despite being basically the current Oval office minus NAFTA minus party minus party and minus appropriate temperament.'

--
Paul Tsongas, August 18th, 1992
______________________________

'Yes I am angry. Yes it is a bunch of lies. But I don't want to stress that. I want to stress that Bush gave the opening slot not to Reagan, not to Quayle, not to any one of his allies but the man who ran against him for not being conservative enough and proceeded to disparage the president in the same speech in which he endorsed him. They claim the Democrats are being run by a radical minority, yet it is quite obvious which party is being run by a radical minority. President Bush does not deserve our hate or revenge, he deserves our pity.'

--
Jerry Brown, August 18th, 1992
______________________________

'People remembered Brown's response more than the professorial and somber Tsongas reply even if it confused Buchanan and Robertson. Of course, Brown was just quipping while Tsongas made an impromptu speech. What impressed me was when I learned Tsongas made the speech on the spot. Tsongas was boring there was no doubt, but there was some kind of unassuming hidden sincerity behind even his morally questionable actions.

Some people called it the wisdom of a man facing the knowledge his days are left. But his wife Nikki said he was always like that. Always willing to take a risk and offer a hand or try an unpopular solution despite being an idealist at his core. There is something in it. I remember Powell explaining later that Tsongas was one of the rare people who managed to strike a chord with him after Powell's wife died. The somber wisdom of having faced the inevitability of death. The bridge between two men who had stark differences but willingness to serve America.

I always knew the economy is what makes or breaks candidates but there is something in the words spoken not to impress others but to offer enlightenment. Having bet on Clinton I found myself on the outside of the Democratic campaign, but once I approached the center as the November neared I understood the strange, unassuming man.

Tsongas knew he was running an impossible campaign, trying to prioritize program over party platform while still striking a compromise. His presidency would be at the mercy of his Party, the same party that a decade earlier sank the possible bipartisan healthcare proposal in order to pander to the special interests. This is not an attack on Ted Kennedy, may his soul rest in peace. But simply a matter of fact.

The Democrats were afraid they are the ones who have moved too far from the center and this is one of the reasons I initially stuck with governor Clinton. He came from a traditionally conservative state and we had a lengthy plan to differentiate himself away from Dukakis, point by policy point. Tsongas, on the other hand, had a foolish dream, to build a coalition of different people instead of moving himself to the center. It just didn't work. Dukakis tried being honest about taxes and it didn't work. Tsongas was more or less trying the same approach and it wasn't working either. Even a weak candidate, like Cuomo, would be making more headway solely on his name recognition.

At least Tsongas recognized two things: first it is all about the economy in the short term. Second, don't ignore the center in the long run
.'

--political commentator James Carville, interview, 1999

______________________________

O93qYjC.jpg

Cameraman at the Astrodome, RNC, 1992
______________________________


Republican National Condescension

The Buchanan speech treated Bush as a mere pupil of Reagan. More was spoken of him as a WWII pilot than his efforts to launch NAFTA or sign nuclear disarmament treaties with Russians. It is commonly believed that although the speech inflamed the conservative base, it was completely tone deaf for the national elections. There was barely a word about the economy, but Buchanan declared a cultural war. No one wanted that.

Tsongas rightfully decried the insidious suggestions he spent the eighties out of his mind and nearly every national and local cancer association joined in his defense. Buchanan received letters of public condemnation from various orthodox organizations, many of which were engaged into pro-life campaigns. Buchanan later claimed he misspoke and read a draft made by another person.

Although Buchanan received the blame for igniting the issue he was far from the only one. RNC chairman Rich Bond claimed the Democrats "are not America" and Republicans are. [10] Quayle's wife quipped that Tsongas spoke of peace while the rest of his generation fought for freedom in Vietnam. Mary Matalin, the party-press chief, called the Democratic campaign as “lower than a snake’s belly,” noting “those characters belong in the out-house, not the White House.[11]

Evangelist Pat Robertson spoke of radical decrepit ideologies hiding behind feminism. Protesters in favor of abortion rights or greater action to combat AIDS were incensed by comments.

The great communicator himself, president Ronald Reagan, had one of more moderate messages on the convention telling the people "Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. [...] My fondest hope for each one of you—and especially for the young people here—is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism." [12]

Moreover, the conservatives, coupled with the Democratic ticket promising it and Perot claiming he can eliminate it, pushed President Bush to promise a Balanced Budget agreement against his better judgment. Although Bush previously promised to reduce the deficit, he finally caved in and promised to support the Balanced Budget Agreement allegedly after Reagan mentioned the need for it in his speech. [13]

People still debate if the bump in polls that followed the convention should be attributed to the culture war, the standard post-convention bump when most of the nation tunes in to see the party platform or the stunning Friday when Bush had to give a national address on Russia before a standard acceptance speech. But what was obvious is that the Republicans have completely missed the mark.

--Two Wooden Planks and a Sharpshooter: the Story of the 1992 Election, New York, 1993.

______________________________

'Four years ago. Dan Quayle and I teamed up and I told him then, speaking from some personal experience, that the job of vice president was a real character builder, and I was not exaggerating. But look, this guy stood there and in the face of those unfair critics he never wavered. And he simply told the truth and let the chips fall where they may. And he said we need families to stick together and fathers to stick around, and he is right.

So when the establishment in Washington hears about this, they get all uptight about it, about him; they gripe about it—but folks in the real world understand, and they nod their head, and he has been a super vice president and he will be for another four years.'

--President George Bush on his running mate, Dan Quayle, RNC, August, 1992 [14]

______________________________

G22FhTI.jpg

NBC News Maria Shriver
______________________________


The Monkey Paw Wish

The Time Magazine quoted August 20th/21st as the reason they named president Bush their man of the year 1992, but everybody knew it was due to events in the prime time less than two months later. Between the final two nights of the convention, the August Coup in Russia went nuclear. Of course, the two explosions were tests of tactical warheads far from any significant location but the headline was there.

President Bush could no longer afford to refer to the events obliquely, especially given he had to give a big acceptance speech before millions of people on Friday. During the previous August Coup, NATO remained cautiously alerted, the most reactions having been elicited from the television crews in Moscow. Much had changed between there and then, most notably the nuclear disaster in Slovenia which still had the grossly inflated number of potential casualties attached to the words communist reactionary coup.

President's advisor, his son George, noted that father spent the entire day pacing nervously between constant new briefings. Instead of reviewing and rehearsing his final remarks, "he spent most of the day in SCIF. [15] Everyone was mad. The RNC wanted to know if the speech is going to proceed as planned. Mom wanted to make sure he had not forgotten to eat again. Reagan offered to lend his assistance, noting he had recently met with Gorbachev [16] Everyone talked all day about nukes. I spent nearly the entire day answering endless questions about is this it - nuclear civil war? The nomination speech was supposed to be the highlight of the Convention yet everyone talked only about Russia. I spent two hours trying to figure out if planned remarks thanking Nixon for his assistance to the foreign policy should be left in or thrown out since it could be seen as acknowledging he was right when he released the memo months ago."

Nearly the entire Astrodome spent the day watching CNN for up to date reports despite appearances. A common joke that August was that Bush had wished for something to overshadow Buchanan's speech but made the wish on a cursed monkey's paw.

General Colin Powell (who was the CJCS at the time) recounted some details about the events that day. "Our objective was to determine who is in charge, who is being the coup, who is likely to win and who is responsible for the detonations." It would later be leaked out that half the CIA predictions would be proven incorrect only after a few hours. Secretary Baker called in frequently to verify what is the policy of Washington and what language to use. The slightest misstep by the White House could have major implications. The National Unity Junta wanted democratic elections while the Supreme Soviet wanted to follow the constitution and existing laws. The Junta was supported by some members of the Yeltsinites, but so was the Supreme Soviet.

How to explain this to the American people?

George Bush agreed to approve DEFCON increase, mirroring that of the year before in preparation of the Gulf war, following satellite reports of massive activity in nearly every military base as well as several former republics. The intelligence did not intercept silence and changes in the pattern of communication that was thought to precede a war, but massive confusion with commanders seeking clarification on their orders. It seemed that initially, like during the First August Coup, the military was willing to sit the thing out. Nuclear detonations changed all that.

Ultimately it came down to this. If Bush gave precedence to the acceptance speech instead of a national address, he would open to attacks he gravely mishandled the crisis in favor of his reelection campaign. If he gave precedence to the national address he would be attacked for exploiting the crisis. One of these cases had no reasonable alternative solution. Less than two hours before the convention speech media was informed that a national address will be given priority, with the acceptance speech being delayed for the following day.

In a potent demonstration of how American policy is often dominated by mundane considerations, even that plan had to be initially abandoned. There could be no sudden sixth day of the convention so Bush had to move his acceptance speech back to Friday, following the national address. In order to separate his functions of president and the nominee, Bush held the national speech sitting behind a desk similar to that of the Oval office before heading on stage in the Astrodome 35 minutes later. His support for the Balanced Budget Amendment was forced to be the second most important headline from the Convention which allowed the Democrats to spin it (counter-intuitively) as copying them.

Despite the thunderous applause Bush received before and after the speech, there was no doubt the entire affair was tainted by coincidence. Did Bush really increase the military readiness just before his speech to save his falling poll numbers? The question was on everyone's mind even if Perot was collected enough to go ahead and not say it.

--Republicans and Raskol: A Troubled History, 2004
______________________________

[ .01] OTL quote
[ .02] OTL quote although pointed against Clinton and Gore
[ .03] This is what he reportedly thought OTL.
[ .04-05] OTL incident back when the Simpson were considered to be provocative and controversial.
[ .06] OTL words directed at Clinton-Gore ticket which is less liberal on this issues than TTL ticket.
[ .07] Allusion to Caifornia medfly invasion.
[ .08] About 90% of the speech, even the closing bit about LA riots is OTL word for word. Even the emphasis made on LA riots was OTL.
[ .09] OTL joke.
[ .10-11] OTL. remarks
[ .12] OTL
[ .13] OTL Reagan called in his speech for 'control of the federal deficit through a Balanced Budget Amendment and line item veto'
[ .14] OTL.
[ .15] Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility.
[ .16] Happened OTL.

Obligatory disclaimer: none of the opinions stated in the update reflect my own. There is no intention to encourage any form of negative discrimination or violence, or make political point about current events. The contradictory statements and judgments may not be an error but ITTL conflicting data and perspectives. Certains minor details might change between updates without a formal announcement by the author. If you like the timeline remember to add to the trope wiki.


 
Last edited:
Okay Buchanans culture war speech was significantly worse ITTL, would he really be that open about his dog whistling aganst Tsongas? I'd think hed say something more along the lines of "Tsongas supports Secularism" no religion involved or "Tsongas is not a traditional Christian" and leave it at that.
Edit: sorry,missed the point where Buchanan said he mispoke..
 
Last edited:
S02 EXT 22 - The Lowell Conspiracy [USA]
Xojx1O2.png


______________________________


The Lowell Conspiracy
______________________________


The Lowell Conspiracy is the name of an American conspiracy theory based on the eponym Lowell. The conspiracy originated during 1992 elections inspired by a number of coincidences and purports that Lowell, a city in Massachusetts, is the center of a world-wide New World Order conspiracy.

Lowell is one of the five largest cities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It was named after Francis Cabot Lowell, a businessman who established the series of first integrated textile mills starting in 1814. Lowell would die before that city would be incorporated and become an industrial center.

The city became the target of waves of immigrants, including Irish, Catholic Germans, French Canadians, Polish, Eastern European Jews, and Greeks. At the turn of the twentieth century, half the population was immigrants inhabiting various "little" ethnic neighborhoods. Although the industrial nature of the city declined, in the seventies city was part of the "Massachusetts Miracle" as part of the area propelled by the growth of high tech industry and financial services. The city has also been involved with the nearby city of Cambridge through the Middlesex District, and Cambridge is well known for its two universities.

The controversy came about in 1992, although the exact sources is unknown. The town of Lowell was the initial immigration point for Panos Dukakis, father of Democrat politician Michael Dukakis and the birthplace of another Democrat politician, Paul Tsongas. Both were liberal Greek-American politicians who actually did not intertwine much despite the beliefs of conspiracy proponents. One other person who is often added to the 1992 conspiracy circle is Lowell Weicker, the American politician from Connecticut who has affiliated through his name alone.

According to proponents of the theory, the 1992 election was a cover for a massive New World Order conspiracy centered on the city of Lowell. Among the factors was President George Bush has visited Lowell at least once in his lifetime and later using the phrase New World Order in his speeches, Lowell Weicker crossing party lines twice (technically only once before 1997) and riding Perot as a puppet for his money in order to end up in the federal government, Dukakis and Tsongas winning the Democratic ticket in a span of four years, Greece voting to leave NATO during the 1992 elections and the appointment of Laurence Tribe for the Supreme Court in early 1993. In its expanded form, the Lowell Conspiracy assimilates every conspiracy theory attributed to Harvard, MIT and Cambridge. Even influence from Cambodian communism was attributed as part of the New World Order agenda due to a previous refugee wave fleeing the Khmer Rouge.

The theory has initially been attributed to Bobby Fischer whose tapes became a runaway hit in late 1992 but Fischer apparently had not acknowledged the theory until the aftermath of the attacks on the Supreme Court Justices. Eric Rudolph, one of the independent Captain Americas (having nicknamed themselves after the Image - then Marvel - comic book character), prominently quoted the Lowell conspiracy as a reason behind his attacks. Although many domestic terrorists were aware of the conspiracy, it became a runaway hit only after the results of the investigation on the attacks on the Supreme Court.

The Lowell Conspiracy has since waxed and waned, straining under pressure from other conspiracy theories, mostly due to being superseded by more overtly racist and identity-based conspiracies. Its downfall was its core belief that immigrant Greeks are somehow manipulating both major parties, a belief that went increasingly unlikely after Greece entered a downward spiral in the Balkans.


--Lexicon of Post-Cold War Culture, 2020
______________________________

Obligatory disclaimer: none of the opinions stated in the update do necessarily reflect my own. There is no intention to encourage any form of negative discrimination or violence, or make political point about current events. The contradictory statements and judgments may not be an error but ITTL conflicting data and perspectives. Certains minor details might change between updates without a formal announcement by the author. If you like the timeline remember to add to the trope wiki.
 
Last edited:
I can't wait to see Bush's address, especially with the first atomic weapons used in conflict for almost half a century!:eek::eek::eek:

Still, what could possibly go wrong. Bush is an experienced foreign policy mandarin. When negotiating with the resurgent Communists, it's not like we're talking about an American billionaire businessman egomainic talking with rouge Far Eastern Stalinists. That would be an utter disaster!!!:closedeyesmile:XD:closedeyesmile:
 
I have nominated this timeline for a Turtledove Award.

The reasons I have done this are... well, I don't quite now where to begin.

This timeline is of an size and scope that gives it a feeling, while reading, beyond a typical timeline. Yes, every timeline tells a story, but Spiralling out of Control feels like an epic. It's such an immense timeline. So many posts on Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and a truly unpredictable and unusual American election. It does not feel so much like a predictable, alternative version of history; it feels like its own, epic history, a world at once far and close to ours (as opposed to, say, Rumsfeldia, which is only far). It's - I don't know how to say this without repeating myself! It's an epic alternate history. It's so granular, and this, I think, has a lot to do with that impression. It's a jawdropping read. With a little polish, if it published in as a book, it would have my instantaneous purchase.

The only other timelines - and I mean the only other timelines - that come close to this one are Blue Skies in Camelot, which - and it, too, is a fantastic read in its own way, but though I greatly enjoy I can not say I adore it as much as others do. And that's okay. Diversity of opinion. ^^ The other is McGoverning, which honest-to-god reads like a novel, like a book that has been a published. Yes, it is, technically speaking, a "timeline." But it is not told through the usual mixture of headlines, photographs, excerpts of future works within that history, fictional articles, and prose spattered here and there at random. No, McGoverning is prose, it's so polished and excellent - yes, polished even beyond Spiralling - that it's book-ready already. If it's finished... my god. It's going to be amazing when it's finished. (You know, I should tag @Yes in this since I'm saying all these nice things.) It's such a well-told story, and like Spiralling, it too is granular, it's detailed, it has a feeling of the epic to it, that indefinable feeling that only it, Spiralling, and FLaG have achieved. (I am obviously speaking from my experience, what I've read.)

I was sorely tempted to give McGoverning the nod, but it had already been done. I was sorely tempted, and I hope Jack (Mr. Hawksmoor?) will not take offense when I say that. But ultimately, I had to give Spiralling the nod. I discovered it as Indecision 1992. It, ultimately, has been around longer, has told more of its story. I still remember reading through 'season two,' about the '92 election, and feeling the slow, creeping realization, that I was reading about a real world, that I was reading a timeline written by an author almost without equal on this website.

Am I being effusive? If I am, both Jack and Yes deserve it. You two are genuinely incredible, talented, skilled writers. I look forward to the completion of your timelines. I hope, one day, that one of you will write original work, and get it published, because your skills are such that you both surely are more than worthy, more than deserving of many actually published writers I could name. You are both fantastic writers and I wish you both the happiest of times and the highest of health.
 
I confess that I haven't looked at this timeline for a while, but I just recently reread parts of it, and I must say that @Jack Hawksmoor's incredible depth of knowledge and research continue to inspire me. I did as advised and made a few additions to Spiraling's TV Tropes page, and I advise all ye faithful who have been following this TL from the start to add some wisdom of your own. The page has plenty of tropic coverage of TTL's Yugoslavia, but almost nothing about the 1992 Presidential Election or developments in Russia, and I think it needs a bit of attention from the stalwart readers.

I know it's been a while since the last update, and I only hope that Jack posts a new update soon so we can have more of this delicious story!
 
Top