From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Perot's spine
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:06:40 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Sep28.223517.23482@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
jeffh@pisces.sps.mot.com (Jeff Heilner) writes:
>Speaking of brainwashing.....how long have you worked for GM?
>I expect the upper tier management there is not composed of people with
>nice things to say about Mr. Perot....have they been talking to you?

Nice ad hominem.  I suspect, since you work at Motorola, that you can't
believe this.  Do the views of upper management at Motorola control
your thoughts?  I didn't think so.

Let me spell out my views of Perot in regard to his actions with GM.
***NOTE: THESE ARE MY VIEWS AND NOT GM'S.

Perot's EDS was bought because Roger Smith, the autocratic ruler of
GM, wanted an data controlling company to handle the monolithic
data processing demands of the largest corporation in the world.
Perot came in as a team player but had a falling out with upper
management, mostly because they were distant from us the little people
(sound familiar?) but also because he disagreed with some of their
acquisitions (such as Hughes).  He wrote a nasty letter to Smith
and that led to his buyout.  Smith was in complete control of the
executive committee and what he said went.  Perot's style could never
have succeeded.  He publicly humiliated a more powerful man.  That is
his style.  A lot of bluster - an "underdog representing the small guy"
image, which he manicures for public consumption (sound familiar?), but
absolutely no ability to work with others in power.  None.  When he
first came to GM, we were all pretty excited because of his public
pronouncements.  Then he followed with public insults to the GM leaders.
We all started to wonder about his style, but thought "hey, he's a
billionaire, maybe he knows what he's doing".  Then, he engineered
a buyout in which he had to be silent.  He could have stayed the course,
fought the good fight, taken some hits, but influenced the improvement
of GM.  But he chose to quit and flee.  Nothing changed, except Ross
got richer.

He will do the same with his political evanescence.  I like the man's
homespun style, but he has never had to influence anyone - he orders
them.  That will not work in government.  Congress will not buckle.
Perot would make a fine political commentator.  Voting for him will
be wasted.  Of course, his image is of utmost importance to him.
If you think that "you" have had any influence on him, answer the
question of why he quit earlier.  If, as he now says, "the movement
belongs to the little people - they own me - they own the country",
why did he quit?  He quit because he wanted to quit.  He'll get
back in if he wants to.  You have absolutely no influence on him.
He seeks only your adoration - not your input.  Did you influence
his book's content?  Nope. Have you had input into any of his speeches?

As for the popular myth that "his" ideas are now instituted at GM,
I think a GM person might be in better position to comment than a
Motorola person.  GM was changing before Perot and is changing now.
It is changing to meet current strains.  The acquisition of Hughes
may or may not have been a mistake, but in my mind not as stupid
as the acquisition of EDS.  What changes are you referring to?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc