From: rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Reply-To: rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:01:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.203739.7900@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>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.

No, of course, I don't.  But thanks for the gratuitous insult.  Tell me,
what's *your* definition of an "unprogrammed" voter: one who backs 
Perot, Marrou or LaRouche?  Is it just possible that someone--say, for
example, me--has examined the possibilities, found things that he or she
likes and dislikes in *all* the candidates, and concluded--independent
of the mad party programming machinery--that Bill Clinton is the best
choice out of those that we've been given?

Nah, couldn't be.  You're right; I must be programmed.

>|> 
>|> 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.

Right.  Here's another recurring myth: we'll just vote the bums out.
Only problem is, nobody wants to vote their *own* bums out.  Everyone
seems to think Ted Kennedy is a useless fixture in the Senate; damn
shame we can't seem to convince the good folks of Massachusetts of that.

>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.

No; frankly, behind the voting curtain, who knows what really happens?
There's no law about making your vote public, so my pride could easily
withstand the thought of "backing a loser."  Let me provide you with a
shining example: I voted for Mike Dukakis four years ago.  I'd do it
again, too.

The problem, again, is that I don't believe Perot can advance his
admittedly better agenda through Congress.  Congresspersons, as 
always, have one prime agenda: re-election.  No one wants to run
on a platform of austerity and responsibility: it's too easy to 
attack such admirable qualities in a mudslinging campaign with one
simple sentence: "He (She) raised your taxes!"

Given the probable gridlock that I still feel would result from
Perot's election, I feel that Clinton is the best remaining choice.

>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.

I'm all for this: it can be accomplished through the abolition of
PAC money and lobbyists from Capitol Hill, the implementation of 
Congressional term limitations, and the implementation of a line-
item veto.  How does electing Ross Perot accomplish any of the
above?

By the way (and I can say this following the debate last night), 
here's a new reason to be wary of supporting Perot: the specter
of President Stockdale.

Rob L.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot