From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: LP Press Release: Perot decision
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:06:13 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

In article <1992Jul17.232930.27217@bradley.bradley.edu>, dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David L. Vessell) writes:
>In <1992Jul17.195004.8876@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>
>>>"The American people need the freedom to make their own decisions. We are
>>>not going to solve this country's problems by having somebody at the top
>>>tell us what to do.  That isn't America's heritage."
>>
>>That isn't what the Perot movement was about, either.
>
>So what was the Perot movement about?  Can you describe it?  I can't.

Sure, I think I can express the gist of it.  Perot tapped into the mass
disapproval of many Americans with the current political environment.  The
"throw the bums out" movement that's been picking up speed was an early
indicator that many people are angry about the way the country's being run. 
The occupational title "politician" is ranked even lower than "lawyer" or "tax
collector".  People are mad as hell with what they perceive is going on in
Washington.  Congress spending more and more money, the debt and deficits are
growing, the president has no domestic policy/agenda/goal, various scandals
such as the S&L bailout, the House bank, our meddling in the affairs of
Central America and the Middle East, PACS, special interests, etc., ad
nauseum.

Then along comes Ross Perot.  He's a successful businessman, which many
translate to "effective leader".  He's wealthy, which implies he isn't
beholden to special interests.  But most importantly, he's *not* a
politician--at least he wasn't until recently.  He talked of "cleaning out the
barn" in Washington--making politicians work for their constituents, not
lobbyists.  He talked about paying off the debt and balancing the budget.

The fact that his detailed plans were irrelevant to the swell of support he
received is a clear indication that people are desparate to regain control of
the country from the wishy-washy, unresponsive, un-statesmanlike politicians
who seem to have turned Washington into a country club paid for by the
taxpayers.

>To me it looked like a billionaire (who ran
>his own company like a tyrant) who spoke in vagueties and then bailed out
>when the going got tough.  "Ross for Boss" is as significant a message as
>his other, quite valid, message of moving people to take control of the
>process again.

Yes, but you're underestimating the frustration people feel.  At this point,
the right vagueties are vastly preferrable to the wrong minutiae.  Ross was a
plausible vehicle with the right message.  The vehicle has broken down, but
that doesn't mean the movement wasn't real.

>But ask yourself this....could anyone but Perot, with his fame and his
>billions, have done what he did?

Sure.  People are *eager* for someone to carry the torch.  Perot's fame
helped, but it wasn't necessary.

>The fact that no one else could is a really sad commentary on this country.

The fact that no one else has is pretty sad.  Now that Perot's shown how it's
done, maybe someone else will give it a shot.  It won't be Marrou, though.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh