From: msmiller@Rational.COM (Mark Miller)
Subject: Re: Perot's Pick-a-Plan Plan
Organization: Rational
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:50:48 GMT

In article <ldudpfINNikt@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>, bwest@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Neal West) writes:
|> >Mr. Perot does not seem to realize that there are voters who not only care
|> >WHAT gets does, but also HOW it gets done.  His continual response of 
|> >"Just pick a plan, any plan and do it" does not allow voters to express any
|> >ideological basis for their choice.  He should realize that people are 
|> >interested in the means, not just the ends.
|> 
|> You are right people are interested.  But the the other candidates
|> only superficially explain their plans.  Lets take Clinton's health
|> care plan as an example.  I have no idea how this plan will affect me
|> on a day to day basis.  Do you know?  Should I trust Clinton to look
|> after my best interests?  Maybe not.
|> 
|> What Perot's pick-a-plan approach does offer me is choice.  Perot if
|> he is to be believed will have an electronic town hall where all the
|> possible choices for health care will be discussed and I get to choose
|> the one I like.  No back room compromises.  No special interest groups
|> or lobbists.  Done in bright day light for all to see.
|> 
|> [...]

The thing Perot isn't making really clear to the voters (which makes
this Pick-A-Plan notion an issue) is the type of fellow he is. Perot
thrives on going in and setting things right. He has this supreme 
confidence in his ability to bring people together ... I've seen it
at work in some of his electronic town halls. Folks who came up to
the microphone who obviously were out to get him came away agreeing
with him. I've never seen a polician be able to do this.

He operates under a somewhat different vision of what a President will
do, I think. If there's good plans for something available, why 
should he re-invent the wheel? If these plans exist, his job is to
get everyone to agree on the best one, and "get it done". This makes
a lot of sense when you think about it. There is no need to spend
time and money re-inventing plans that exist - what's lacking is the
leadership to get folks to stop finger-pointing and "just do it".

What ole Ross isn't doing is properly explaining why he's adopted
this stance and what it means in terms of action. Folks are too used
to candidates spelling out (in varying degrees of detail) their own
personal plans for this, that, or the other. They are not used to
someone coming along and saying: "Hey, the plans we need are there
already, they exist, we just gotta get them moving."

What this requires is faith that Ross is right, and that the plans
DO exist and that he CAN get them done. But how does this differ
from believing Clinton or Bush can get their plans done? Just because
George waves that stupid "Agenda" thing around doesn't make me trust
him much more. Clinton sounds believable ... but so does a used car
salesman.

The idea of putting the issues and problems in front of the people
is pure sex. If congress starts giving Ross a problem, he goes on TV
and tells us what's going on. If we agree with him, our senators
and congressman get flooded with hate-mail. If we don't, Ross will
just go: "Ok, you don't want this, lets move on." Damn, that's the
way its supposed to happen. Imagine having some control over when,
and for what, our taxes get raised.

	-MSM

________________________________________________________________________
Mark S. Miller                                     msmiller@Rational.COM
"Life is a 4-letter word."                        msmiller@world.std.com
[ insert tedious disclaimer drivel here ]                           IV-Q
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc