From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:33:29 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <GORDON.92Apr14201138@lugh.think.com>, gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff) writes:
> [...]  George and Bill have forced me to
> reconsider -- their corruption, their unwillingness to stand
> up for individual rights, their suppression of opposition,
> but especially the way they are foisted on us by their
> respective party hacks.

I have to laugh at this. In a sense, it says much good about the
american political system that someone can consider Bush and Clinton
to be corrupt. We've managed to keep our political system clean enough
that the word has ceased having its original meaning and is now used
for other purposes.

Nobody has ever accused Bush or Clinton of taking paybacks for a gov't
contract, of freeing a prisoner in exchange for a bribe, of passing laws
to enrich their families, or having a political opponent beaten up, jailed
or killed because they got too big for their britches. 

Which, regretably, are standard practice in most of the countries on
this continent (and probably on the planet).

>  If someone could please explain why
> I should support either Clinton or Bush, please do!

Because they aren't H. Ross Perot?

Basically, Bush and Clinton at least understand power, administration,
law and bureaucracies. Clinton is a sleaze and Bush has broken a number
of campaign promises. They're politicians.

Clinton is ideologically a long way away from me; Perot is probably much
closer to my ideology, but I'd choose Clinton over Perot. At least Bill
understands the limits to executive power - I don't believe Perot does.

An example to keep in mind is President Fujimori of Peru. He campaigned
as a hard-nosed outsider with a tough reputation who would come in with
a broom to clean things up. He's doing exactly that - without bothering
with a few niceties of the law. [I'll admit; faced with his problems, I'd
be tempted to start using firing squads. That's why I program computers
for a living, while others run for political office]

Neither Bush nor Clinton is likely to pull something like that; From what
I hear of Perot, I'd be worried he would.

> [good things happening early in campaign] Perhaps I vainly hope that a
> viable third national candidate would have the same effect.

Don't put someone on the ballot just because you think it will shake up
the other campaigners. You can't take him off once you've achieved the
proper shake. Put someone on the ballot because you want him to
win - you'll feel pretty stupid if he gets elected and that isn't what
you wanted. You'll feel even stupider if the House of Representatives
chooses someone yet else whom you like even less (Tom Foley? Jesse
Jackson? Alan Cranston? Dan Quayle?).

Besides, the campaign has already achieved its purpose; if you don't
know who George Bush and Bill Clinton are, what they have done in their
careers and how they stand on a majority of the issues you care about, you
haven't been reading the papers. And that's what the campaign is about;
showing you who your options are.

A campaign is *not* where issues are decided. If there is an issue that
neither candidate takes a stance you like, that is when you need to find
another candidate. What you *don't* need is for the existing candidates
to posture such that you change your mind and think now they do take your
stance. If you think a candidate makes a change in future policy as a
result of a campaign, you are either deluded or have been lied to.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.