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 17:19:28 GMT

From article <1992Oct3.010235.12786@dscomsf.desy.de>, by hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):
> 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.  The difference is that
> |>Republicrats get a job on CNN's Crossfire.  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.  I won't name any names, you know who they are.
> 
> It is a fact that whereas most posters are content to saty "Bush is Lying" or
> "Clinton is lying" or even "All politicians are liars", the Perotistas tend to
> start by attacking posters who are skeptical of Perot saying they are liars.

Nonsense.  Clinton and Bush supporters quite often accuse those who
are critical of their candidate of distorting the facts and that's
just what Perot supporters do.  There may be specific instances where
someone has called a critic a liar in the heat of an arguement but
that is by no means unique to Perot supporters.  

> |>It's interesting that you should mention Perot's "lack of policies."
> |>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.  
> |>Of course, the Perot haters insisted that this was just a con job 
> |>and were content to engage in flame wars with Stratocaster or Pye 
> |>rather than accept the observable indications that Perot was indeed 
> |>formulating detailled policies with the help of a variety of experts.
> 
> Opinion Poll experts.

Again, nonsense.  Anyone who could suggest that the policies that Perot 
has proposed were formulated to generate positive opinion polls is either
completely out of touch with reality or is simply engaging in the kind
of rhetorical gamesmanship that Holly Silva has so aptly called you
on.  (<1992Oct2.220821.4830@morrow.stanford.edu>).  I'm guessing the
latter.  

> |>Now we know the the truth.  It wasn't a con job.  Perot's detailled
> |>policies were completed and released only a few weeks later. 
> 
> I am still waiting for them.

More gamesmanship.  Perot's proposals are just as detailled as any that 
have been offered in this election.  Any attempt to be more specific is 
a waste of time at this point.

> In his polemic he is trying to straddle the fence. United we stand has two
> mutualy contradictory themes:-
> 
> 1) That the US has stopped investing and that unless investment restarts will
> continue to decline.

Very true.

> 2) That the government should in no case interfere with business.

Perot calls for a more cooperative relationship between business and
government.  He would reduce regulation but use incentives to
encourage businesses to act prudently.  Perot does not say that 
"government should in no case interfere with business."  

> The problem is that Perot gives no proposal for increasing investment. 

Not true.  Perot spells out a plan for increasing investment in just
as much detail as Clinton or Bush.  Perot's plan encourages real
investment in long term and small business investments. 

> Since we
> have already seen the effect of twelve years of the latter policy it is hard to
> see how it's continuance can assist.

There has actually been a considerable amount of tampering with
business over these last 12 years.  Unfortunately, they've managed to
stifle real growth while allowing paper profits to grow.

> A more specific example, re health :-
> 
> # In the longer term, comprehensive national healthcare reform based on a
> # public-private partnership should involve the following:
> #
> # * Establishing a national health board as an independent federal agency to
> # oversee cost containment and comprehensive health-care reform efforts
> #
> # * Setting a national health policy
> 
> Err, yes but what effect would this have, besides meaning additional
> beauracrats? How does this fit in with the overall plan to reduce
> administration? To save costs -- create a new department, great!

Do you really think it's reasonable to ignore Perot's huge cuts in
spending and complain about spending in the one area where Americans 
are demanding more government involvement?  According to Bill Clinton, 
health care costs are the biggest problem in our growing deficit.  We 
can either take steps to bring it under control now or we can pay for 
it later.

> In the whole of Perots pamphlet I was unable to find any proposal defined in
> sufficient detail to determin it's likely effect.

Just enough detail to decide that you're agin' it, ay?  Of course, that was
probably decided by the time you got to "By Ross Perot."  



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