NAFTA and GATT. Voters whose fathers remembered the complaint of a beaten Bonesman,
Robert Taft, in 1952-- tbank and the Rockefellers-- found that every GOP presidential candidate since 1936 hahis touched a responsive chord. d been chosen by Chase
Bush realized that he was faced with an ugly problem. He summarily resigned from both the
Traileral Commission and from the New York Council on Foreign Relations. But his situation in
New Hampshire was desperate. His cover had been largely blown. He stopped talking about the"Big Mo" and began babbling that he was "the issues candidate." This was an error in demagogy, (^)
also because Bush had nothing to say. When he tried to grapple with issues, he immediately came
under fire from the press. Newsweek now found his solutions "vague." The Washington Post
reported that Bush "has been ill-prepared to respond to simple questions about basic issues as they
arise. When he was asked about President Carter's new budget this week, his replies were vague andcontradictory." The Wall Street Journal agreed that Bush's positions were "short on detail. In
economics his spending and tax priorities remain fuzzy. In foreign policy, he hasn't made it at all
clear how he envisions using American military power to advance economic and political interests."
These were the press organs that had mounted the hype for Buspolls, the ones that are generally not published, showed Bush collapsing, and even media that wouldh a few weeks before. Now the real (^)
normally have been rabidly pro-Bush were obliged to distance themselves from him in order to
defend their own "credibility," meaning their future ability to ply the citizens with lies and
disorientation. Part of Reagan's support reflected a desire by voters to stick it to the media.
Bush was now running scared, sufficiently so as to entertain the prospect of a debate among
candidates. One was held in Manchester, where Bush tried to bait Reagan about an ethnic joke the
latter had told. "I was stiffed," explained Reagan, and went into his avuncular act while Bush
squirmed.
John Sears of the Reagan campaign signalled to the Nashua Telegraph, a paper published in
southern New Hampshire, that Reagan would accept a one-on-one debate with Bush. James Baker
was gulled: he welcomed the idea because the debate format would establish Bush as the main
alternative to Reagan. "We thought it was the best thing since sliced bread," said Baker. Bob Dole
complained to the Federal Elections Commission about being excluded, and the Reagan campsuggested that the debate be payed for out of campaign funds, half by Reagan and half by Bus (^) h.
Bush refused to pay, but Reagan pronounced himself willing to defray the entire cost. Thus it came
to pass that a bilateral Bush-Reagan debate was scheduled for February 23 at a gymanasium in
Nashua.
For many, this evening would provide the epiphany of George Bush, a moment when his personal
essence was made manifest.
Bush propaganda has always tried to portray the Nashua Teleghraph debate as some kind of ambush
planned by ReNashua Telegraph owner, blueblood J. Herman Pouliot, and Telegraph editor John Breagan's diabolical campaign manager, John Sears. Established facts include that theen, were both (^)
close personal friends of former Governor Hugh Gregg, who was Bush's campaign director in the
state. Bush had met with Breen before the debate. Perhaps it was Bush who was trying to set some
kind of a trap for Reagan.
On the night of February 23, the gymanasium was packed with more than 2400 people. Bush's
crony Rep. Barber Conable (or "Barbarian Cannibal," later Bush's man at the World Bank) was
there with a group of Congressmen for Bush. Then the excluded GOP candidates, John Anderson,
Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and Phil Crane all arrived and asked to meet with Reagan and Bush to
discuss opening the debate up to them as well. (Connally, also a candidate, was in South Carolina.)