From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:34:46 GMT

From article <BvKBsH.5oy@unix.amherst.edu>, by twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce):
> In article <1992Oct2.152826.29155@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
> 
>>There's no question that Perot has and had his overzealous supporters,
>>but then so do the Republicans and Democrats.
>>...
>>Suggesting that Pye and
>>Strattocaster are somehow more vehement than the well known zealots
>>from the various ends of political spectrum that populate the net is
>>ridiculous.
> 
> It's also quite irrelevant.  Perot is a *person*, an individual
> candidate; the Republican and Democratic parties are entire ideals, as
> are the "various ends of the political spectrum."  It's not uncommon
> for people to be zealous about specific political goals or ideals, for
> that's the nature of politics.  

Perot is currently the sole representative in this election of an entire 
set of ideals.  It was the Perot bashers who made Perot himself the 
issue.

> However, specific supporters of Bush
> or Clinton rarely (ever?) get as single-minded as the Perotistas.

You have not been reading some of the same messages as I have.

> When someone's support for a specific candidate rises to the level of
> support that Perot has marshalled, we call that dogmatism.

It seems to me that the established political parties would love to
brush this whole thing off as a bunch of crazies.  That way they can
continue to buy elections with money and promises that the country
can't afford.  

>>Back when the pathological Perot haters were regularly bashing Perot
>>for his "lack of policies," supporters explained (quietly and
>>rationally) that according to Perot, detailed policies were being 
>>formulated and would be announced well in advance of the election.  
> 
> What basis did they have to believe this?

There were several articles in the Wall Street Journal which mentioned
the commitees being formed, experts being contacted and meetings being
held for just this purpose.  I quoted at least one of these articles in 
the very group.  The evidence was there for anyone who was not determined 
to ignore it.
 
> I don't care that Perot later published his stands.  It remains that
> people supported him -- to an alarmingly unqualified extent -- before
> he did so.

People supported him based on the basic princibles that he spoke about.
For many, and maybe most, that support was contingent on a set of
policies that were true to those princibles.  Perot's support was probably 
less "unqualified" than the vast number of Americans who push down all 
the levers for same party every year.

Republicrats love those button pushing words like "alarming" and such.
That anyone could support either Bush or Clinton is what is truely
alarming.  


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush