From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why perot?
Date: 26 Sep 92 22:09:14 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <farenebt.717554383@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy) writes:
> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
> First off, I believe this was an email reply not a posting. I didn't 
> think it is netequiette to do something like this. But, I will be happy
> to defend my positions in public anyways. Of course we're going to have
> to endure significant pain. That's what Paul Tsongas was talking about.
> You know what happened to him.

  RIGHT!!!!!  EXACTLY!!!  Refer to my NIMBY comment...

>> Seriously, I DON'T WANT A PRESIDENT TO PAY LIP SERVICE TO THOSE ISSUES!!
> 
> Lip service that Clinton and Bush are giving is better than no service
> at all, which is what Perot gave.

  No service?? NO SERVICE??  Have you even READ "United We Stand", or won't
being a member of the ACLU allow you to stomach reading it???

>> I want somebody that's going to do something about things, and I don't see the
>>Republocrats moving too quickly to help.
> 
> If this were a parliamentary democracy, Perot might have a shot at doing
> some things, but in our system, he would be even less effective as 
> CLinton or Bush. You see, we have this thing called a Congress. In Perot's
> business, his Congress (the board of directors) was nothing more than 
> a rubber stamp on what Perot wanted. Perot COULD listen to their suggestions
> but didn't HAVE to. Bush has allies in Congress. Clinton has allies in Congress.
> If a president had the power to do things by himself, Perot might do okay
> but he doesn't. A president is not an autocrat.

  You see, we have this thing called two parties that couldn't give a rat's ***
about actually running this country and solving its problems.  I don't trust
EITHER candidate.  I'd accept a Clinton win.

  And, with regard to the President not doing things by himself, I think Perot
is as smart as anyone to figure out what he can and can't do.
 
>> That's the problem.  The American people are too stupid and NIMBY to realize
>>that any real change is going to take further sacrifice on their part too.
> 
> No argument there. Sounds a lot like what Tsongas was talking about.
> 
>>>>  As far as skipping the heat, maybe it's his ultimate strategy.  If he can't
>>>>have the chance to be refuted, his people may vote for him.  Right??
> 
>>>Reagan and Bush may have had thin skins but they didn't quit when the
>>>going got tough. Bush has been heavily scrutinized by the press
>>>during this campaign. Clinton has been too. They  have heavily scrutinized
>>>each other. Gennifer. Draft dodging. Hillary. Iran-Contra. Neither Bush
>>>nor Clinton decided to quit. When a tough decision comes up, Prez Perot won't
>>>be able to say, I'll be back in a few months.
> 
>> And that's the one question most will have for Perot, to be sure.  My opinion
>>is that he felt Bush could be defeated by Clinton alone and that he would get
>>in the way.  NOw, seeing that people are interested in the book and the economy
>>not being stressed as it should, he has to do the best for the country, by
>>getting back in and forcing the candidates to speak to the economy.
> 
> MY opinion is that Perot was treated kindly by the media for a long time.
> Longer than any prez will get. Then, when a little trickle of heat came,
> Ross quit. He bailed out. I don't want a president who is going to do
> that. For as much as I dislike BUsh, during the War for Oil, he didn't
> say, "Well, things are getting too tough now so I guess I'll go to
> Keunebunkport for a few months. Here's control of the government, Dan."
> Who's his veep candidate going to be anyways?! 
>
  The more I think about it, the more I think he thought Clinton could win and
do something.  I think Ross sees Bush gaining and could win in six weeks. 
(PUKE)

  I don't know who he has for VP, but I hope it's a good one.

>> Note that I did not say that he himself would be President.  Think about what
>>could happen to other minor parties if he blasts the two-party monopoly down
>>this November.  Then Marrou might have a chance in 1996 to have his voice
>>heard.  Think about it.
> 
> I have no doubt that his blasting of the two-party monopoly is a good
> thing. Unlike the GOP's, I believe that diversity in points of view is
> a good thing.

  Well, the Democrats aren't much further ahead in the diversity issue than the
Republicans.  Ask the governor of Pennsylvania...
 
>>>When the going got tough, Perot got going. Now he's back. He's saying, much
>>>like Bush, I screwed up last time give me another chance. 
> 
>> At least Perot was not in office when he made the error.  :)
> 
> True. But what's to say he won't do it if he gets in office.

  What's to say Clinton won't??

  I think if it got to the point that the public would have no confidence in
Perot, I think he'd see himself as a hindrance, so don't say leaving
necessarily isn't a good thing ... for someone as unconventional as Perot.
 
>> No, I think candidate Perot decided to implement plan X, and answer all your
>>questions about not having a platform by putting the platform before the
>>candidacy, and not the other way around. 
> 
> What WAS his platform? His platform was solely economic. The Presidency
> is not the chief economist of the country. Granted the prez should be
> doing a better job than Bush but Bush and CLinton are more diversified
> as a whole than Perot.

  Read the WHOLE book, then call me.
 
>> Once he saw interest in the platform
>>and the economy not being as stressed as it should be, he's done what he feels
>>he has to do.  Perot does not want to be President; he wants to help the
>>country.  He's biting the bullet, Bri.  He feels he has no other choice.
> 
> That's what he WANTS you to believe. He WANTS you to believe that he
> is doing it out of the goodness of his heart. He abandons his volunteers
> and now comes back acting like nothing happened. Why didn't he just say,
> "I'm sitting out for a few months to see if Bush and Clinton discuss the
> issues better." 

  HE DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
>> I personally shudder to see how Bush could run the country, and I'd rather
>>basically put two-thirds of the system in the Democrats hands to stop that. 
>>Perot is here to see things get addressed, and what might happen is that people
>>will vote for him to send a message.  What scares you is that there could be a
>>hell of a lot of people that could send that message.  Enough to win the
>>election??  Prob. not...  Enough to win states and hang the election?? 
>>Maybe...  Enough to make a difference???  You answer that one...
> 
> Are you kidding? Perot would be in an even harder position than Bush. At
> least Bush has the other 1/3. Who would be on Perot's side?

  You'd be surprised...
 
> I don't mind that Perot's voters would be sending a message. What I 
> find disturbing is that they are going to put their trust into a quitter?
> He bailed out when the going got tough. Before he dropped out, I at
> least respected him and what he was doing. Before he dropped out, he
> was acting with courage that the other two were lacking. Now, he acted
> with even less courage than the other two.

  I won't put my trust into two parties just perpetuating the situation, and I
can't put trust in a candidate who won't be President until Debbie Gibson wins
an election.  I don't trust the Republocrats; I think we need to do something. 
And if we wait 4-8-12 more years, we might as well have another revolution.

>> Besides, being a Clinton supporter, I'd think you'd love having Perot to help
>>put Bush away.
> 
> That has nothing to do with it.

  See my above comment...
 
> (personally, I hope we get rid of the electoral college before another
>  debacle occurs)

  Better hope it's gone before November 1992.

						Mike Falkner

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48500 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6040 alt.politics.bush:7097 alt.politics.clinton:7703 alt.politics.elections:14595