From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Who is H. Ross Perot? - The Perot Amendment
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:21:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.010928.631@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:
>
>In <sf5q8INNisr@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes
>>guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:
>
>>>  In recent weeks the national media floodgates have opened to pour forth
>>>a flood of imagery depicting H. Ross Perot as a white knight and benevolent
>>>saviour.
>
>>Oh really?  I haven't read any such media.  At most, you are referring
>>to a single political cartoon that I have seen.  In short, your first
>>sentence is a gross innacurate depiction of the media.  You are 0 for
>>1 so far... but I'll continue reading.
>
>  I really am not responsible for the depth of your personal memory hole,
>so all I can do is to suggest that you go back and review the NYT or the
>WP, which have been covering Perot consistently in recent weeks.  I have
>also noted that Perot has been getting more coverage than Jerry Brown on
>C-Span lately, especially on their weekly program "Road to the White House"
>(Last week on that program, we got 1 hr. of Perot, nothing on Brown)".
>
	Of course, for the previous two months, whent he primaries where
hot and heavy, there was no Perot on the "Road to the White House" and
many hours of Brown.
	As far as the press being uncritical of Perot, you should be watching
"This Week With David Brinkley". The section where they have the round table
discussion with all the reporters (George Will, Sam Donaldson, Ms. Roberts,
etc) have twice so far turned into a Perot Flame-Fest. The fact that his
candadicy in new is probably the only reason it's been relatively favorable.
Be Patient- we still have almost seven months of dirty politics to go.
 
>
>pmahler@StarConn.com (Paul Mahler) writes:
>|...Later he spoke about the problems with our health care systems.
>|He said he would find experts in health care to study the problem.
>|These experts would be chartered to examine our health system,
>|and every other health system in the world.  From these studies he
>|would establish four pilot programs. If one of these programs proved
>|successful he would move on implementing one of them.  As he said,
>|this seems to make more sense than moving directly from a dumb idea
>|to over funding to failure.
>
> This isn't a position, it's a placebo.  The problem has already been
> extensively studied for decades.  We already have full-scale working
> systems in Canada and all across Europe, so why do we need "four pilot
> programs"?  Why?  Because Perot really doesn't have a position on health
> care, unless it is to do absolutely nothing for the next four years.
>
	I don't know if I see it that way. He is basically saying 
something needs to be done involving ensuring everyone has basic
health care. Thats more than Bush has said (until recently). On the
other hand, he could have a detailed health care plan like Clinton
has (but has never used- what kind of health care (if any) does Arkansas
have?). That has little chance of being approved without significant
modification.

>
>>I have an idea that this is about the same amount of money Bush will
>>have spent by the end of this campaign.  The significant difference is
>>that Perot is rich enough to dig this out of his own pocket... and
>>Bush will have to get this from PAC money if he expects to win.
>
>So this is your defense of an obviously flawed system: "Bush does it
>too".  What we need is real campaign reform, not another guy trying
>to buy the election.  In 1988, the average price for a House campaign
>was $576,000.00, and average price of a Senate campaign was $3.27 million.
>Is this what you support?  Is this what H. Ross Perot stands for?
>We need a presidential candidate who will lead by example, and that is
>not Perot.

	One of the reasons Perot has required that people, on their own,
put him on the ballot in all 50 states is to nullify the notion that
he's buying the election. If a couple million unpaid people go out and get 
signatures with little help from him, It doesn't look like he's buying the
election. In fact, it looks very populist, like.. Jerry Brown.  

>>Oh really?  That statement is an oxymoron.  Like nearly every other
>>sentence in your post it doesn't say a damn thing.
>
>Nice grammar flame.  I guess those are the only valid points you are capable
>of making. But my statement still holds true.  It is the threat of his
>$100 million that buys legitimacy, and nothing else.

	The fact that he will get on all the ballots without political
party support will buy his legitimacy as much as the $100 M. The 100M
means that he won't have to worry about the Demopublicans  out-
spending him on TV time.

>
> Of course, the only *real* difference Perot can make is to hand the
> election to Bush and the Republicans, just like Wallace and Anderson
> did.  The only question... is that the *real* purpose of his candidacy?
>
	Of course, two weeks ago, the pundits were saying the only
*real* difference Perot could make it to take away Bush support. 
Hopefully, even if he doesn't get elected, the *real* difference
he will make is to get more people to vote.