From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Perot's "United We Stand America" launched today
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:30:14 GMT

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]

>>>You know, it's easy to criticize others who take a stand and take
>>>action.  It's interesting that those who post criticisms tend not
>>>to come up with any better ideas, and they don't tell us what they
>>>are *ACTUALLY DOING* that is more effective at solving our common
>>>problems than what Ross Perot and his supporters are doing.

>>Well, if I knew what Ross Perot and his supporters were doing that was
>>effective at solving our common problems, I could answer that better.
>>But as far as I can tell, the answer is: nothing.

>Well I can't challenge you on the notion that not much was
>accomplished as far as the campaign is concerned because obviously our
>candidate, Perot, was not elected.  That's kind of a truism.  Other
>than that, Perot's campaign partially supported by the volunteers left
>behind a legacy that is continuing to this day, and hopefully into the
>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."  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.

>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.

>media (Perot's arch-rivals :-) ) credited Perot with promoting and
>influencing the openness in government we've seen a bit of, namely the
>Clinton Economic Conference.  They said that probably would never have
>happened had Perot not entered the race.  These are just three examples.
>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.

>I have always felt that Perot got very little credit for influencing
>what he did.  It seemed that every time he brought something up the
>media was critical of him, saying it was radical, but when Clinton
>brought up the same things a week or two later, the media accepted it
>as is.  I noticed this repeatedly.  I could go into media bias, but
>that's not the point.  The accomplishments of the Perot campaign are
>indirect.  For example, he did not suggest or organize the Economic
>Summit, but it was generally felt that his campaigning on certain
>issues influenced politics enough that Clinton felt it would be good
>to organize the Economic Summit.

>>What am *I* doing?  I'm (1) educating people about politics/economics/etc 
>>(and *not* with 30-minute sound bites) and (2) motivating people to get
>>involved in politics (and *not* by sending me money or buying my book)
>>and (3) sending money to organizations that *stand* for things, rather
>>than UWSA, which stands for "liberty, equality, fraternity," or
>>something equally generic.

>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.

>hearing that proceeds from the book were supposed to go towards
>supporting the UWSA national organization.  Is that right, or am I
>mistaken?  As for what UWSA stands for, I have never heard of it

Yeah, that's what I heard, that the book $ goes to the organization.

So he's no longer "spending his own money" on the cause.

>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.  

-- 
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 |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.reform