From: breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt)
Subject: Re: PEROT OFFERS TO BANKROLL COALITION
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:47:20 GMT

Phil, normally I wouldn't follow up to followups of my own post, but you
tried so hard to pick it apart that I just can't resist.

In article <1992Jul20.182134.9571@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.014121.22149@access.digex.com>,
>breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt) writes:
>
>|>               "PEROT OFFERS TO BANKROLL COALITION"
>
>|>"They plan to be a presence at Republican and Democratic campaign
>|>events, and they expect to bring their influence to bear ***on the
>|>election of candidates for the House and Senate***"
>
>Perot wants to sit as great pooh-bar whoose favour politicians must try to win.
>
>Am I the only perosn that can see that a billionaire could make even
>more billions from such a position. Perot has no policies, how will he
>decide on the suitability of candidates, will his private interests have
>*nothing* to do with who he supports??

OK, first of all, I am not a Perotista or otherwise a Perot supporter.
What Perot himself is to me is a name attached to a political movement,
a party of the third part, that hasn't existed with this much fervor
in some time.

What I suggest is that the state coordinators (there's at least 50
of them), get together and form a committee to establish a new
party using the "organized" support that they already have.

Using Perot's name (at least in headlines) is a good way to accomplish
that among the Perotistas.  If there is any way possible to do this
without Perot's personal involvement that would be great, but I
hardly would dismiss the effort just because he could be a bad guy.
What should we do, stick with the evil we know?

>
>
>|>OKAY, lets recap the last few days events here...
>|>
>|>1.   Perot fires team of political handlers that should not have
>|>     been there in the first place (good decision Ross).
>
>Perot decides not to spend the money he promised to.
Who cares.
>
>|>2.   Perot announces that he will not run for President (who says
>|>     that Perot can't play politics?).
>
>Perot sabotages Bill Clintons Acceptance speach by stealing the headlines.
Check the polls again.
>
>|>3.   Perot announces that he will not take his name off the ballot
>|>     (no kidding).
>
>Perot after claiming that his decision to withdraw is motivated by not
>wanting to disrupt the political process maximises the disruption he
>causes.

Of course, no less than any other politician would do, he's just not
staying within the boundaries of traditional political navigation.
That's part of what a lot of people want -- a different approach --
you certainly can't expect him to succeed without some sort of
politics could you? -- or would you prefer that he just buy it?

>
>|>4.   Perot agrees to chair and fund a national coalition...(why did
>|>     this take so long :-)
>
>Oh yes ... to the tune of $100 million? This phoney has proved a
>tightwad liar before.

As far as I'm concerned he can chair it, or just leave it alone,
just don't kill it.  It's not --his-- political movement anyway,
it's the peoples.  He is just a face and a name as far as I'm
concerned.

>
>|>CAN ANYONE SAY "NEW POLITICAL PARTY" -- this is what I've been
>|>writing and talking about the last few weeks.  I definitely believe
>|>this is the right direction to take.
>
>NO this is to block a new political party. By creating a vehicle that
>will go nowhere this shister will prevent a third party from being

It could happen this way if the state coordinators and their supporters
allow it to happen.  And if Perot really is a bad guy, in which case
none of this really matters, we just have 3 big bad guys now.

>formed.
>
>
>|>There is still room for optimism, while at the same time many Perot
>|>supporters are disappointed.  I say that this is what we really
>|>want to happen.  
>
>What to be disappointed?
>
>
>|>The "Perot Coalition" right now is moving both
>|>parties closer toward the center already.  Both "parties" are
>|>attempting to get the support of the "Perot Coalition" behind them.
>
>The two parties were indistinguishable before. 
>
>
>|>This is the way to do it.  A unified coalition or "third party" if
>|>you will, can have almost as much influence as if Perot actually
>|>were to become President.
>
>Perot gets more airports built for him, more funds for medicare, boy you
>Perotista suckers just don't know when you've been had. Larouche sounds
>more credible.

He's doing that anyway.  Like I said, if WE form our own party around
this movement (aka the "Perot Coalition") we could just forget asbout
him and put a new face in there.

>
>
>|>A third party (or coalition) is just what this country needs right
>|>now, in order to get many political-fence sitters into the fray AND
>|>BE HEARD.
>
>But what you don't need is a Bush stooge who has done his best to ruin
>the Clinton campaign and will endorse Bush at the Politicaly most
>damaging moment.
>
> 
>|>For those that are afraid that Perot is a fascist or just afraid
>|>that he might become one, don't worry, in the end it does not have
>|>to be Perot that is our candidate in 1996 or 2000.  He certainly
>|>won't be sitting on 100's of Congressional seats at once.
>
>He will have them filling his pockets with Congressional funds.
>
>How can people STILL be falling for the fraud? This is the church of the
>Risen Perot!
>No matter that their great leader has never explained what he stands
>for, he utters the right platitudes, they applaud.
>
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker


It may well be a fraud coming from Perot.  But, there is this gift he's
given us of a whole bunch o'people all over the country that are/were
just sitting on the fence waiting for some way to get involved.  These
people should stay together, even without him and do something good
for this country.

But, you're right, how could just a bunch of unorganized, normal
ordinary people from all over the US actually work together to
effect meaningful change here, without a crook leading us and
telling us what to do we can't think on our own right?

Throughout my argument I speak of the "Perot Coalition" and the 
activities of the current organization, because that is the basis
for all of this.  That doesn't mean I support him, in fact I too
have many doubts about his intentions and the way he would handle
the power...but that doesn't stop me from getting excited over the
possibility of finally being able to do something to spark some
changes in this country. 

If we have to rename it in context of this discussion, lets call it
something else, but let's get on with it before the opportunity
slips away.  If we keep crying about what might go wrong, we'll
never do anything.  We can't keep complaining about what the
"politicians" are doing to this country if we don't try to do
something about it.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections