From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:37:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.190253.3381@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct9.143053.5160@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
|> >
|> >Please explain to me how someone who had never ANNOUNCED his candidacy
|> >could pull out?
|> 
|> ANNOUNCED or NOT, Perot was actively campaigning and announced during the
|> Democratic Convention that he was not going to seek office.  You (and he) can
|> play all the games you want with whether he was an official candidate or not,
|> but he was in, he pulled out, and he re-entered.  Now, some argue whether he
|> ever really pulled out--they say he was just trying to shed the national
|> limelight while he worked behind the scenes--but that doesn't wash.  *I* say
|> he pulled out, *I* say he broke his promise to *me*, and *I* refuse to vote
|> for him.  I still agree with his message, I've just lost the ability to trust
|> him.  He blew it.  He had a good chance of winning, but he pulled out (or
|> played games) and rather than building support, lost the trust of many of his
|> supporters.
|> 

Well then go ahead and vote for a less qualified person.  Vote for
someone who you think will hurt the country in the long run.  Vote for a
candidate who will raise your taxes and then let congress raise spending
even more.  Why not vote for the best man for the job?  Did you get your
feelings hurt?

Vote with your mind this year.  It is the first time we have been given
this opportunity.  Look at the resumes.  You are on the Board of
Directors.  You are voting for a Chief Executive Officer, not head
politician.

|> >Also, Perot saw, as I did, the democratic party at the
|> >convention address real issues and actually perform admirably.  I was
|> >quite impressed as was Perot evidently.  Where Perot's assessment and
|> >mine difered is that I realized that the only reason the dems were
|> >acting so rational waas because Perot was in the race.
|> 
|> You must have watched a different convention than the one I saw, which was
|> pretty much the same "new" moderate, socialist, Democratic line Clinton's been
|> hawking all along.  I saw nothing to make me believe that Clinton supported
|> any of Perot's plans or addressed any of his concerns.  He didn't adopt
|> Tsongas' economic plan.  He didn't adopt Perot's gas tax increase.  He still
|> thinks he can vastly increase spending by raising taxes and cutting spending
|> in other areas.  Have the Democrats in congress even endorsed Clinton's plans?
|> It seems likely to me that he'll have an easier time spending money than
|> cutting spending.  Will he wait until his cuts pass before increasing
|> spending? 
|> 

Yes, I agree with the points you make.  But the Democrats had released a
plan at least, they did seem to be pulling back to more mainstream
positions.  And they did deserve a chance to prove to the American
public and Perot supporters that they were able to take the issues and
address them in a real way.  Having Perot still in the race would have
gotten in the way of that.  As far as I am concerned Clinton blew it.


|> >I realized at the time that if Perot dropped out of the race it would be back
|> >to dirty politics as usual.  As it was.
|> 
|> Err, I thought you said he wasn't *in* the race, yet here you say he dropped
|> out?  Uh huh.
|> 
Again I admit we are playing semantics here.  He was in the race but was
not a declared candidate.  Remember he is an independent candidate and
does not have to play by the rules of the Dems and Reps, and declare
early so that he can go thru the primary thing.  He really gave clinton
a chance.

|> >Also, I think Perot felt as if his
|> >organization was being taken over by the professional handlers (Ed
|> >Rollins and Hamiltom Jordan and their staffs) and he did not like that,
|> >or the deriction that these people were taking him.
|> 
|> Oh that's great.  He couldn't handle his own handlers?  And he's supposed to
|> be able to "clean out the barn" in Washington.  Riiight.
|> 

They were not HIS handlers.  They were hired by some of his advisors.
Once onboard they started molding his campaign into a typical political
machine.  I am glad they are gone.  YES, he handled his handlers.  Right
out the door.

|> >Perot was forcibly bought out of GM.  His contract stated that if the
|> >Board of Directors voted to buy him out the he had no choice.  Even
|> >after this happened he went to them and said "Don't do this.  You can't
|> >afford it".  
|> 
|> I don't know, I was led to believe that he didn't put up as much of a fight as
|> expected.
|> 
|> You wanted one example of Perot being a quitter.  I gave two, and your
|> responses haven't convinced me that at least the first is not valid.
|> 

I don't think anyone could convince you.  I am as bullheaded as the next
guy and I admit that sometimes when I get something in my head there
aint no way I am going to change my mind.

Ross has admitted that he made a mistake.  He has apoligized to all of
his supporters who were hurt by his announcement in July.  If you can
tell me that you have never made a mistake then I think you should not
accept his apology and vote for one of the lesser candidates.  However
if you have ever made a mistake I think that this is an issue to put
behind us.

Doug
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot