From: breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt)
Subject: Re: Perot's spine
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:11:03 GMT

In article <168716403.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>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?

Even if all this is true and all of this makes Perot a bad
President, we know that Bush and Clinton will be bad
Presidents.  But, we get more out of this (hopefully) than
a Presidential bid.  I know that a lot of us out in the corn
fields (argh) are working to see that this is a movement that
is sustained and sustainable after this election.  There is
a lot more to be done.  I don't see this as the beginning
and one solution.  I see this as a beginning with many future
possible solutions in many avenues of politics and gov't.  As
long as we stay organized.

We have needed something (a third party) or major affiliation
that can put a strain on the rope (argh) between the other
two parties, and get more people involved in this process who
absolutely refuse to be "members" of the Democratic or
Republican parties.

**********************VOTE FOR PEROT IN 92********************

---Rob
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot