From: strat@cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Who is H. Ross Perot? - The Perot Amendment
Date: 14 Apr 1992 22:15:32 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu

guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:

>In <sf5q8INNisr@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes
>>guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:
>>
>>Hey, Guy!  Thanks for the informative and reasonably biased news
>>article!

>Hey, Steve!  Thanks!  How are things in Kent?  I used to live there, in
>College Towers across from the ice skating rink.  Does the Numbers
>Band still play every Friday night at JB's?

Can't you read?  I'm not from Kent, I'm from Manhattan.

>>>  In recent weeks the national media floodgates have opened to pour forth
>>>a flood of imagery depicting H. Ross Perot as a white knight and benevolent
>>>saviour.

>>Oh really?  I haven't read any such media.  At most, you are referring
>>to a single political cartoon that I have seen.  In short, your first
>>sentence is a gross innacurate depiction of the media.  You are 0 for
>>1 so far... but I'll continue reading.

>  I really am not responsible for the depth of your personal memory hole,

Good.  Because you seem to have enough trouble keeping track of your
own memory hole.  You see, there is more to life than reading the New
York Times.  And, even in this paper, there has not been this
"benevolent savior" BS.  In almost every magazine or newspaper
article, and in almost every televised essay I have seen about H. Ross
Perot, he is described using biographical information.  They talk
about how much money he has, what he wants to do as President, how
much emphasis has already been placed on him during this election.
This may be boring drivel... but it does not fit the characterization
you made.

>I have
>also noted that Perot has been getting more coverage than Jerry Brown on
>C-Span lately, especially on their weekly program "Road to the White
>House"

Uh, excuse me... but how can you call C-SPAN coverage "a flood of
imagery depicting H. Ross Perot as a white knight and benevolent
savior"?  If anything, C-Span is one of the least biased television
stations in America.  

>(Last week on that program, we got 1 hr. of Perot, nothing on Brown)".

Maybe this is because Perot has a better chance of winning than Brown?
Perhaps this is because Perot already has more support in the polls than
Brown?  Maybe this is because Brown didn't want C-SPAN cameras
covering his speeches?

Don't forget that "Road to the White House" has been running for
years... I remember watching hour-long segments on people who never
decided to run for office.

>>  Awash in this tempest of newsprint and television exposure, Perot
>>and his views remain an enigma for most voters, and, indeed, many of his
>>supporters are confused as to where he stands on all but the most
>>superficial issues.

>>I don't believe this is true either.  Fortunately, I have access to a
>>vast computer network called Internet...

>Regardless of what you "believe"...

AND I KNOW HOW TO USE IT.  Just because you can dredge up a quote from
some poor idiot who doesn't know how to look up references doesn't
mean that NO ONE on Internet is capable of searching out good source
material.  You must not have been following these newsgroups very
closely either.  There have been transcripts of television
appearances, and a considerable amount of lively debate in these
issues.  Do you claim to be ignorant of all the discussion that has
been going on here in recent weeks?

[net.wasted.bandwidth deleted]

>> From this I have been able to
>>pick up a little more information on Ross Perot than you have.  If you
>>are still confused about his positions on things, you should try
>>FTPing to bjmccall's FTP site (sp?) and downloading some more
>>information.  I assume that this idiotic statement of yours comes from
>>the fact that you can't read... and when you do, it's to pick up
>>your college newspaper.

>My, my, getting a little personal here, aren't we?  Could be a sign that
>you have absolutely no logical grounds for your position.

Well... my "Position" is that you don't know what you're talking
about.  This is self-evident in your messages, but I thought I'd point
it out anyway.

>I am afraid that Perot's idea for a national town hall will never
>work until people learn to address one another in e-media as they
>would in person.

Oh really?  And why should I address you as I would a person?  ;-)

No.  Really.  To convince me of this you would have to A) Explain what
Perot's "idea" for a national town hall is, B) Explain how it relates
to the current implementation of cyberspace, C) Explain why it won't
work, D) Explain how dealing with one another the same way as we would
in person would change C)!

>>Believe it or not, there IS more to the American
>>media than just CNN and Headline News.  I have removed television from
>>my environment and have discovered that I can learn more about
>>politics and political candidates by READING about them than I can 
>>watching CNN.

>A minor point, but you claim to follow C-Span in another of your recent
>posts.  Are you being inconsistent here, or do you listen to C-Span
>over the radio.
          ^^^^^
Bingo.

>Here is an example of a Perot "position", as related second-hand
>by a Perot supporter:

[Paul Mahler's paraphrasing of Perot's Pilot Program idea deleted]

> This isn't a position, it's a placebo.

Wrong.  A placebo doesn't do anything except give the patient
confidence that the treatment will work.  Setting up pilot programs
not only gathers more data, but also encourages development in the
field.

>  The problem has already been
> extensively studied for decades.

And unless something is DONE, physically, this problem will continue
to be "studied" for decades.  

>  We already have full-scale working
> systems in Canada and all across Europe, so why do we need "four pilot
> programs"?

Because 1) None of these systems is ideal, 2) we do not know how these
systems will affect our economy, 3) because the "public" sees all
these different systems and likes parts of some and doesn't like parts
of others.

By setting up Pilot programs, we can tell what will and won't work in
OUR country.  We can see what systems OUR economy can handle.  This is
the best course of action of the three that are on the table now.

Plan A:  Continue "studying" the problem until the industry collapses.
Plan B:  Pick a working system from another country and implement it here.
Plan C:  Chose bits and pieces from different systems and determine
which will work best... then set national policy to reflect what we
learned from these pilot projects.

Now... which do YOU prefer?

>>[blah blah blah ]

>>>  With his personal war-chest of 100 million dollars,

>>I have an idea that this is about the same amount of money Bush will
>>have spent by the end of this campaign.  The significant difference is
>>that Perot is rich enough to dig this out of his own pocket... and
>>Bush will have to get this from PAC money if he expects to win.

>So this is your defense of an obviously flawed system: "Bush does it
>too".

Absolutely not.  You didn't read.  Perot can pay for his election
without being influenced by PAC's.  If BUSH wants to spend the same
amount of money he will have to take PAC money.  PAC money ~= BRIBES.

>  What we need is real campaign reform, not another guy trying
>to buy the election.

"Another" guy trying to buy the election?  Who else is trying to "buy"
the election with his own money?  No one.  On the other hand, King
George, and all of Congress are trying to "buy" their re-elections
with YOUR money.  Which do you prefer?

>  In 1988, the average price for a House campaign
>was $576,000.00, and average price of a Senate campaign was $3.27 million.
>Is this what you support?  Is this what H. Ross Perot stands for?

Do you think so?  Because if you do, you misunderstand the premise of
his platform.

>>> Perot has already
>>>bought his way to the status of "serious" candidate, without yet having
>>>to spend a penny.

>>Oh really?  That statement is an oxymoron.  Like nearly every other
>>sentence in your post it doesn't say a damn thing.

>Nice grammar flame. 

Saying that a sentence is an oxymoron is not a grammar flame, it's a
logic flame.  Your logic does not make sense, so I flamed it.

>Just to drive my point home - in a previous post you said:

>|[Our election system is]
>|crazy.  Insane.  If Ross Perot was, say, a semi-wealthy
>|oil man with the same ideas... no one outside of his region would have
>|even heard about him, let alone listened to what he had to say.  But,
>|because Perot is filthy rich... because he was ALREADY a nationally
>|known figure... and because most of the people who know him LIKE him,
>|he has a strong chance of making a real difference in this election.

So... what does this have to do with Perot wanting to "buy" the
election.  Again, you didn't read.  Perot is a "nationally known
figure", because he has money, he is influential, he has been involved
in Texas politics for years.  He also has a good chance because he
leaves good impressions with the people that he meets.  Now... you
took the time to dig up and quote this article.  Why the hell didn't
you READ IT FIRST?

Here is how Perot himself responds to allegations such as yours that
he wants to "buy the presidency":

|  "I've told the people the only way an independent can win is if he
|can help finance his election.  I've told the American people straight
|up that if they want me to do this, then I will run a well-organized,
|well-financed election and I will be doing it for them.  If that
|offends them, then they will not get the petitions signed and they
|will not vote for me.  And that is their prerogative."

But the petitions ARE getting signed.  In every state.  I think you
hold the minority viewpoint on this issue... if it is an issue at all.

> The only question... is that the *real* purpose of his candidacy?

Wait!  Let me guess... I almost have it... maybe to become PRESIDENT?

>>  The media monolith has contributed virtually unlimited
>>free and positive "advertising" in the form of uncritical newsprint
>>and ample television coverage,

>>"Uncritical Newsprint"?  With your choice of words, you're beginning
>>to sound more like Artimus every second.  How exactly do you define
>>"uncritical newsprint"?

> That's grammar flame number two.

BZZZT.  Wrong again.  That was *NOT* a grammar flame.  In fact, the
grammer in your original post (at least that paragraph) was pretty
good.  HOWEVER, your observation skills stink.  

>>Are you trying to say that the op-ed piece in
>>the Christian Science Monitor was "uncritical newsprint"?  Are you
>>REALLY trying to convince me that the media has been "uncritical" of
>>someone who rushes in and attempts to shake up the status quo?  If you
>>believe this is true, then you must not know anything about the way
>>our system works.

>  Sorry, but I don't read the Christian Science Monitor,

Neither do I.  However, the article was posted to USENET.  You must
have missed it...

> so I may
>have missed one of the few articles critical of Perot to date.

No... you missed MOST of the THOUSANDS of articles critical of Perot
to date.  

>  My impression is that the press has handled Perot
>with kid gloves thus far.

This is your impression.  

>  Perot is hardly shaking up the status quo,
>rather, he is part of the status quo. 

I'm beginning to wonder about you.  We *ARE* talking about the same H.
Ross Perot here, aren't we?  Perhaps you have evidence to substantiate
the claim that Perot's campaign platform centers around perpetuating
the status quo.

>  Rumours of Perot's "willingness" to run were widely circulated well
>before his appearance on Larry King.

BFD.  My roomate has been telling everyone he knows that he's
"willing" to run for President... in 14 years when he's old enough
that is.

>  Are you trying to claim that you
>didn't know why he was appearing on Larry King that night?

I don't watch CNN.  I really don't give a crap why people choose to be
on Larry King Live.  Usually it's because they get paid.  Perot
probably wouldn't care about $100 or $500 to appear on the show.  I
did read, and keep, the transcript to this appearance:

(From Larry King Live, Febrary 20, 1992)
|LARRY KING: ... Are you going to run?
|
|H. ROSS PEROT: No.
|
|KING: Flat no?
|
|PEROT: But we've got an hour tonight to talk about the real problems
|that face this nation and you, in effect, have sort of an electronic
|town hall, so I think we can serve the country by really getting down
|in the trenches, talking about what we have to do, and then doing it.
|
|KING: Why not serve the country by running for its top office?
|
|PEROT: I feel very strongly that my contribution, if any, in this
|country is to create taxpayers, and I know we need more taxpayers.  I
|would do anything I could to help this country because it's been so
|good to me.  If I could come up here for nothing and spend the rest of
|my life and contribute in a very tangible way, I'd do that in a
|minute.  I owe the country that.

>And how did you find out?  From the extensive press coverage of
>Perot, of course.

Actually, I found out through USENET.  Like I said, I don't watch CNN.
It rots the brain.  The first mention of H. Ross Perot in my college
newspaper was in the middle of March... LONG after I had already
started gathering information about him myself!

>[blah blah blah]

>Nice technique you have here, deleting all the important passages of the
>post

Nice technique you have, quoting long sections of previous posts, even
though you have nothing to say about them.  For your information, I
did not DELETE any part of your post.  You can still go back and read
it.  But I do not continuously repeat passages unless I am responding
to them.  You should learn a lesson from this.  It saves reading time.

>>So you you've dug up a little dirt.  Proud of yourself?

>Dirt is Gennifer Flowers in the Star.  Dirt is George Bush's mistress.

Eh, NO.  Those are *** WOMEN ***, Guy.  Not dirt.  At least I assume
George's mistress was a women... there's been so little publicity
about it...

> I posted a
>very issues-oriented part of Perot's record, a part that the media forgot
>to mention. 

If the media forgot to mention it, then how come I had already heard
this?  Maybe because I read?

>>Or, more to the point... do you think anyone really cares?

> People that don't vote probably don't care.

Another sweeping generalization that has no foundation in reality.
Most people DO care.  However, they choose not to vote because they
are convinced that the system is corrupt, or that their vote doesn't
matter in the long run.

>  Everybody else should
> take the records of the candidates into consideration when making
> their decision. 

> The excerpt I posted is part of Perot's record.
> You have refuted neither its accuracy nor its importance.

That's because I have nothing to say about its accuracy or its
importance.  It may or may not be accurate, and it may or not be
important.  1) I am not a historian, 2) I am not a political
scientist, 3) I am not psychic.  Without at least one of those three
credentials, I can't say anything conclusive about the little quote
you dug up.

Stratocaster
-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
   ******* Don't laugh, my other BBS is an information service... *******  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc