From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Subject: Re: Perot's "United We Stand America" launched today
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:23:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: (speaking only for myself from Austin, Texas)

In article <1993Jan22.183014.10984@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <Jan19.091551.69858@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> millerm@CS.ColoState.EDU (mark miller) writes:
>>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>>[stuff deleted]
>
>>future.  He brought up the concern about foreign lobbyists in one of
>>the debates, and recently there was talk about that in Clinton's
>>appointment for Commerce Secretary.  You can bet there would've been
>>very little concern for Ron Brown's connections if Perot had not
>>hammered on that issue during the campaign.  The deficit is another
>
>Bullshit.  Number one, what Ross did was babble xenophobically about
>"foreign lobbyists."

Let's stick to the facts, shall we, David?

Ross Perot did not babble.  He spoke in plain English that was quite
understandable.  As evidence, it is clear YOU understood his meaning,
even if you disagreed with him.  Therefore, it could not be babble.
Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

>  Number two, Clinton talked about ethics from the
>beginning.  Number three, the media has covered these things before.
>Remember John Tower?  Number four, Ron Brown wasn't really a foreign
>lobbyist.  Well, actually, he did work for Haiti's government, but Haiti
>isn't the country taking our business, and it isn't the one Ross was
>referring to.


Secondly, Ron Brown is a REGISTERED foreign lobbyist.  He is a lobbyist
for a number of Japanese corporations through his law firm.  He personally
services some of those accounts.  He accepts money for doing so.  Therefore,
he is a foreign lobbyist.  You are incorrect again.

I can send you a list of foreign agents operating in the United States
of America.  It comes from Pat Choate's book, "Agents of Influence."
This list is VERY long (too long to post, although I might break it
up into pieces and post it - or, if you would like a copy, send me e-mail).
These are just the REGISTERED foreign agents.  If you assume that
lobbying "works" (because corporations and governments don't spend
money over time if they don't see results), then this is indeed a national
scandal and a big ethics problem.  Ron Brown is now Secretary of Commerce.
You are incorrect again, David.


>>issue that has come up recently, and the announcement Clinton made
>>that he might have to take back his promise of reducing the deficit in
>>half by 1996.  That probably would've been a minor footnote if Perot
>>had not hammered on that issue so hard.  Several people in the TV
>
>Yeah, it wasn't as if Democrats haven't been complaining about the
>deficit for years.

The Congress appropriates money.  The Congress has been overwhelmingly
Democratic for a long, long time, certainly during the period of the
big deficit run-up.  Therefore, the Democrats are AT LEAST as guilty
as George Bush and Ronald Reagan for the deficits.  Again, you are
incorrect.


>>The accomplishments may look minor, but I think the greatest one was
>>his campaign made a lot more people a little more aware of our
>>national government.  We seem to pay more attention to what's going on
>>with it, and we want to know more.  That's my impression anyway.
>
>They've credited Ross with it, but I see no reason to believe it.
>Clinton was holding town meetings before Ross Perot ever went on the
>Larry King show.  Whether it's hypocrisy or not (decide for yourself),
>Clinton has *always* been big on making his government look open.


So what?  Clinton nominated 14 lawyers out of 18 major posts.  Do
you call this "open?"  Besides, appearing to look "open" means little.


>>Well that's great!  I'm happy you're doing all those things.  By the
>>way, I would hardly call a 30-minute program a sound bite!  About
>>Perot's book.  Maybe someone can clear this up for me, but I remember
>
>I would.  Anyone who thinks they can learn economics in thirty minutes
>is awfully naive.  And yet Ross pretended he was teaching people what
>they needed to know.


Pay me my standard rate and I will teach you basic economics in 30 minutes
flat, with a money back guarantee.  Economics is not very difficult
to understand.  Ross wasn't teaching economics, by the way -- he was
explaining how much we all owe in debt, and the shape of the curves.


>>standing for "liberty, equality, fraternity" "or something equally
>>generic."  I know at least one thing it stands for off the top of my
>>head:  Fiscal responsibility.  There are many other things on the agenda 
>>list that are meaningful.  Just wondering but did you bother to look??
>
>Yeah, AND I even read his whole book.  

If you have specific policy or factual differences, then we would
be interested in hearing about them.  But playing partisan politics
in this day and age is just silly.

David, you may hate Perot's guts (not too difficult to do ;-),
but unless YOU go out on a limb and posit some solutions, you are
reduced to merely a spectator.

>-- 
>David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
>niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
>   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
>Baltimore Orioles 93 |


-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWS Austin-AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} arweiss@netftp.austin.ibm.com  - NEW ADDRESS    | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | alan@auntbea
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics