From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:37:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.172444.2736@news.columbia.edu>, rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct13.153749.13597@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct12.190253.3381@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
|> >|> In article <1992Oct9.143053.5160@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
|> 
|> >Well then go ahead and vote for a less qualified person.  Vote for
|> >someone who you think will hurt the country in the long run.  Vote for a
|> >candidate who will raise your taxes and then let congress raise spending
|> >even more.  Why not vote for the best man for the job?  Did you get your
|> >feelings hurt?
|> >
|> >Vote with your mind this year.  It is the first time we have been given
|> >this opportunity.  Look at the resumes.  You are on the Board of
|> >Directors.  You are voting for a Chief Executive Officer, not head
|> >politician.
|> >
|> 
|> Ah, but that's precisely the point: YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR A CEO.
|> YOU ARE, MOST ASSUREDLY, LIKE IT OR NOT, VOTING FOR A HEAD POLITICIAN,
|> a man whose job description is to work with other politicians to run
|> the government.  Perot shows evidence of being a brilliant CEO, and
|> if the election were for one omnipotent politician, I'd more than 
|> likely cast my vote for him.

Sounds like you are another successfully programmed voter.  You have
been programmed by the established political parties.  Of course, YOU
don't think so.

|> 
|> But it's not!  Perot can't simply declare his budget, and magically
|> shall it become law!  There's this little technicality called CONGRESS,
|> and until Perot shows signs of being able to work *with* them, playing
|> the political game that by definition must be played by the President
|> of the United States, I can't vote for him without thinking that what
|> I'm really voting for is four more years of gridlock.
|> 
|> Bill Clinton may not have all of the best ideas of this campaign.
|> I willingly admit that I like Perot's better.  But given the complete
|> job description, ideology simply doesn't make Bush or Clinton 
|> "lesser candidates."  
|> 

Perot should be able to work with the Conggress much better than either
of the other candidates.  Actually congress has nothing to lose by
working with him.  If they continue to foster gridlock it will only be
two years until that problem will be taken care of.

No, ideaology doesn't make them lesser candidates.  Attitudes, the fact
that they are professional politicians, the fact that they are trying to
divide the people rather than unite them,  the mudslinging.  All of
these things and more make them lesser candidates.  I admit Bush is the
worst of them and I think this will show in November.

Perot will surround himself with advisors from both parties.  He will do
what has to be done.  He is a realist.  He is not goint to try to ram
something down the congresses throat that has no chance.  To do so is
not good buisness.  

Why not give Perot a chance?  You admittedly like his ideas better.  Are
you voting for Clinton just because you think he will win?  Are you
afraid to back a loser even though it seems the odds are against you.

Remember that the founders of this country had the odds against them,
yet they persevered.

Take this country away from the special intrests, the PACs, and the
politicians and give it back to the PEOPLE to whom it BELONGS.

Doug

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot