From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Why Bush supporters should Back Perot
Date: 11 Apr 1992 15:04:22 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:

>In article <s64m6INNnsf@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>>pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>>
>>>In article <s3679INN6s0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:

>>Right now I'm a Perot backer, not necessarily because I like him, but
>>because I think it's important that we smash the two party system into
>>tiny little bits.

>1) What _ever_ he does, short of constitutional reform, will not smash
>the two party system into tiny little bits.

I'm not sure why you think it WOULD take constitutional reform to shake
up the parties.  The constitution does not mention "Republican" or
"Democrat" anywhere within it.

>  The two party system is a
>natural outgrowth of the way the system is set up, despite the fact
>that the framers weren't too crazy about parties as a concept.

Actually, it isn't.  Toward the beginning of American history, whenever
there was an election for President, the winner would become president
and the first runner-up would become VICE President.  This worked,
until there became a deep rift between two sides of the political
debate.  One side wanted a strong central government, and the other
side wanted more power delegated to the states.  (I'm making sweeping
generalizations here... bear with me!)  At one point, it became
impossible for the Executive to do anything because there were
competing ideologies right at the top.  The "system" was changed to
what we have now.  Every Presidential candidate carries a running mate
along as well.  I'm not sure exactly when this all ended... but the two
party system did fall apart at one point.  One of the parties was split
in two, and from that split came the Republican party.  The "Grand Ol'
Pary" is actually one of the younger parties in this country.

>Basically, the way things generally work
>on the national level is the two parties represent a fairly broad
>cross-section of American opinion between them.  (I don't like the
>fact any better than you do, but 34% of Americans identify themselves
>as Democrats, 31% as Republicans, and the vast majority of the
>remaining third swing between the two majors.)

While I have no doubt that your numbers are accurate, I think you are
only reading the headlines on this issue.  The main problem with the
Republicans and the Democrats of today is that there is *NO*
Idealogical difference between them.  They are, in effect, two
bickering pieces of the SAME party.  Both Republicans and Democrats
would be perfectly happy following the same course of "Borrow" and
"Spend" until foreign investors buy our country out from under us just
to pay our debt!  The two party system of today is based on
association, rather than ideology.

[blah blah blah] 

>As for whether that's a good thing, that depends on your view of
>the two party system.  Obviously, the LP doesn't like it, and you
>don't.  Given the experiences of countries with multiparty parliamentary
>systems, I think ours works better in the long run, but since it would
>take constitutional reform to alter the fact, I don't really feel like
>arguing the point either way.

You still have yet to explain to me why it would take constitutional
reform to have a third party candidate in the White House.  You see...
In this election, I am tending to support a person named Perot who has
1) A voice of change when people are looking for it, 2) is not a
Democrat, 3) is not a Republican, 4) has a hundred million bucks to
spend on television advertisments.  Let's look at what this guy could
do to the election results.

1)  He's from Texas.  Chances are he would win Texas outright, just
because he's well known there and has a lot of money to spend.  But
wait, this is Bush's stronghold.  And no Democrat has ever won the
election without taking Texas.

2)  He has a genuine voice of economic change.  This view is also part
of two Democratic candidates' platforms as well as the LP platform.
These seems to be very popular these days.  Since Tsongas, and Brown
aren't going to be on the ticket... their supporters might well vote
for Perot.  Since Perot is a nationally known figure, he might get a
lot of people who would have voted Libertarian for economic reasons.  I
really don't see how ANYONE would be compelled to vote for Bush, given
his track record on domestic and economic issues... I also feel that a
lot of hard-core Right Wingers would vote for someone like Perot
because they might feel he's on "their side".  He wants to make change,
but he wants to make positive, constructive, long lasting change.

3)  No one wants to see this economy go into permanent decline.  No one
wants to be worse off in 1996 than they are now.  As I understand it,
there is a study to be released, or already released, that shows that
the Average American (whatever that is) is worse off than before Bush
came into office.

4)  People are sick of the kind of crap we had to wade through in late
1990 with our budget.  There was so much campaigning, bickering,
fighting, spitting, and etc. ... and nothing positive came out of it.
The "budget crisis" was only forgotton (in the short term) when Bush
took us on a little ride through the "Vietnam Never Happened" amusement
park in the Mideast.  But now, over a year later... I believe more
people are beginning to wonder why they have been so complacent all
this time.

>>[blah blah blah]

>If you wish to discuss things reasonably, that's fine, but this
>"blah blah blah" business is insulting.

This [blah blah blah] business is one of the standard ways of pointing
out that entire paragraphs have been deleted from the quoted text, and
if someone wants to respond to them, they're going to have to dig up
the original reference.  Unlike some of the wierdo's on this net, I do
not quote 20 lines of material just to respond to the last sentence of
it.

> ("If you don't vote for Perot,
>the world will end," indeed.  Catchy campaign slogan, that.)

Oh thanks.  It took me about a second to type that down.  I have no
doubt that this is the kind of campaign he is likely to run in some
areas.  Read the transcript to his Press Club speech.  I was very
impressed.  He has to be the first Presidential candidate in a long
time who actually KNOWS something about macroeconomics.  Reagan read
que cards... Bush pretty much doesn't care that people know he's inept
at the issue, and so on.  Perot means business when he talks about
business.  He knows the numbers, he knows the history, he knows what
has worked in the past and what hasn't.  But probably the best part
about his economic "plans" is that he knows how to terminate programs
that don't work and replace them with new ideas... even if these
programs were ones he instituted HIMSELF.  If plan a) doesn't show
promise within a year, delete it and try plan b).  In some cases, this
is the way you have to run things.  At the very least, when Perot
becomes President, he will have the best managed Executive in the
history of this country.

>Basically, you suggested that the way to solve our
>budget problems is to give the federal government, which already
>controls 25% of GNP, more money.

Oh, not necessarily.  And, I really doubt that we are in CONTROL of 25%
of the GNP as much as we "have the legal power to mismanage" it.  The
biggest problem with the borrow and spend philosophy of today is that
it is SO addictive to our government officials.  First you borrow money
(through taxes, or foreign relations)... and then you pour that money
into social programs so that you'll get reelected.  Then, in your
second term you do the same.  Then, in your third term (assuming it's
Congress here) you do the same.  And you keep doing this until you
resign, or until you piss off enough people in your district that you
get voted out of office.

> Somehow, FDR managed to build
>government bigger than it had ever been before with government
>controlling 10% of GNP.  Our GNP was _much_ lower in real terms, as
>well. 

Okay then.  Given the three "electible" people who will be on your
ballot in November, look at their economic track record closely.  Which
one is likely to break the "borrow" and "spend" cycle that we've had
for as long as I can remember?

> "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey
>and car keys to teenaged boys."  The only way we're going to solve the
>deficit is to cut spending, and people are talking about new
>entitlements programs.

Entitlements are important.  Without public education, we won't have a
workforce.  Without higher education, we won't have a power base to
compete on the international front.  You see... there are a lot of
things we HAVE to do to get ourselves back into the position of a world
leader.  These include education, foreign trade, the rebuilding and
enhancement of our infrastructure, better opportunities for small and
medium sised businesses.  All of this power rests in the hands of our
government.  If your state government doesn't have enough money to keep
the education standards of your University afloat (mine doesn't), then
the money HAS to come from the Federal government.  If your state isn't
doing enough to encourage economic growth, then the Federal government
is going to have to step in and intervene.

The beautiful thing about this upcoming race, is that we have a real
opportunity to break the cycle that is already in place and replace it
with one that has both short and long-term goals for economic growth.
This will mean that government spending will be cut.  This will mean
that new entitlements will be granted.  This will mean that our
nationwide economic strategy will be built around growth, and
opportunity.

[blah blah blah]

>>This depends on what you think are bad.  1) He's pro choice.  2) He favors
>>gun control.  3) He wants to continue fighting the War on Some Drugs
>>(my biggest beef with him).  4)  He seems to put the family unit on such
>>a high pedestal that he would make hire/fire decisions based on the
>>employees's (sp) marital status, or who they live with.  E.G. I understand
>>that he would not allow 2 of his employees to live together unless they
>>were married.  Really evil shit, you know?

>Well, I wouldn't want him for a boss.

That's your choice.  The more I look at it, the more I think he might
have been justified in the policies he took as a boss.  After all, he
was in charge of an information service that catered to huge
corporations.  I think if I was the boss at this place, I'd do
everything in my power to make sure my employees weren't intoxicated
(by means of any chemical) on the job.  There would be too much at
stake.  And the thing about forcing employees who live together to
marry... It sounds like he might be making these policies to reduce the
chances of industrial spying.  I'm not making excuses... it's just that
I'm not really surprised about the policies that he enforced.

>  What's he like as President?

Well, being President means a lot of different things.  You're the CEO
of the Executive branch, for one thing.  I think Perot is a pretty good
CEO.  He was about to turn a profit the entire time that he WAS one, at
least.  You are also a "leader" in terms of national policy, foreign
policy, and so on.  From listening to Perot's Press Club speech, I get
the idea that he would be very good as the role of a "leader".  He
holds the very same "leadership skills" that you hear so much about in
High School and College; he has a plan for the future and is able to
articulate that plan to the public easily and effectively; and he
sounds like he knows what he's talking about.  The public (when he
starts campaigning for real) will have better confidence in his
knowledge of economic matters than any of the other Presidents.  As far
as foreign relation goes... his main theme is trade.  With Perot as
president, Japan and Europe would have to pay us if they want us to
help in their defense.  With Perot as president, Japan and Europe would
not be "enemies" (as Pat suggested), but instead would be competitors.
Probably best of all, Perot doesn't advocate going to war for economic
reasons.  This, I hope, will be the downfall of George Bush.

>So far, his only qualification is being a billionaire, as that's
>the only reason people are taking him at all seriously.

Another sign that we need real change (and soon) in our government.  If
a voice can't be heard unless it has a hundred million dollars to spend
on television advertising...  What does that say about our democracy?

>  It's
>as if someone took a novelist seriously because he was rich enough
>to buy a publishing company.

Exactly.  It's crazy.  Insane.  If Ross Perot was, say, a semi-wealthy
oil man with the same ideas... no one outside of his region would have
even heard about him, let alone listened to what he had to say.  But,
because Perot is filthy rich... because he was ALREADY a nationally
known figure... and because most of the people who know him LIKE him,
he has a strong chance of making a real difference in this election.

[blah blah blah]

>>>  ...  He, at least, gives lip-service to fixing
>>>the "bads" in our government. ...

>>More lip-service stuff.  Dude.  You have to realize that lip-service
>>means "to shit from the mouth".  :-)

>Clever.  Basically, all he's saying is that a president who knows
>what should be done but is too wambly to do it is marginally
>better than a president who wants to make the problems worse,
>as there's always the chance that he'll have a fit of backbone
>and do something right by accident.  Unlikely, but our choices
>in this election are not pleasant.  And anyway, what's Perot
>done save give lip-service to _anything_?

You bet your ass he has.  This guy has never held public office before,
yet he's made more contributions to society than Bush and Clinton put
together.  Just the list of awards he has won goes on for a page...
This guy has actions to back up his words.  This is the best part about
him.

[blah blah blah]

>Not that I'm about to start the Quayle fan club.

GOOD!  Something we agree on...

Stratocaster

-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
The USA has more prisoners per capita than South Africa, Iraq, or CHINA!