From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:53:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <1992Apr11.170556.11265@udel.edu> lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
>
>This is my main problem with Bush. He wants to be President just to
>top his resume. I never liked Ronald Reagan, but at least he had
>some idea of the direction he wanted the country to go. He had
>a vision. I didn't agree with it, but at least he had one. Bush
>has admitted in the past that he has problems with "the vision thing".
>
>Now, to be fair, I will tell you why I don't like Clinton. He seems
>to have had his sights on the Presidency since he was in college.
>All his political alliances, his actions, and even his friendships
>seem to be calculated at helping his eventual run for the White House.
>However, since I don't live in Arkansas, I don't know if Clinton is
>like Bush in that he wants the Presidency just to say he had it, or
>if he really has an idea of where he wants the country to go. If
>the choice comes down to Bush and Clinton, a have to pick "possible
>vision" over "no vision". However, Perot defintely bears looking into.

  I believe I agree with you on most of your article.  Maybe not all
the subtleties, but certainlly I agree with your overall summation.

  I even agree that Perot defintely bears looking into.  I think I disagree
that "Perot doesn't want to run for president".  I suspect that it is a likely
"campaign stunt" (am I too cynical?)

  Trouble with Perot is that, unlike Clinton and Bush, he can say anything
and we have to "trust" that he isn't just telling us what we want to hear.
With Bush and Clinton, we can look at their record and say "well that
isn't consistent." (Too skeptical again? Perhaps, perhaps not.)

  The editorials I've seen so far (Economist and Chicago Tribune) aren't
particularly favorable.  The articles are too lengthy to type in, but
he is described as offering "pugnent" opinions. (Tribune) "But pungent
is not the same as wise, reasoned, well-informed, or even particularly
candid."   Specific citations are then made to back this point (at length.)

  The Economist also states that his "...suggestions for shaking up General
Motors, when he was on its board, were less helpful than he will admit."
The article states that he offers some "good ideas, even when they are
surrounded by the flim-flam and populist nonsense..".

  Both articles do take into account that Perot has a strong appeal to 
frustraded voters and grant him credit for that much, at least.

  The article on "White horsemanship" in this week's issue of the Economist
is something I find interesting in general.  You may want to read it.

  I'm not trying to say "Perot is bad".  I still think he is "worth looking
out".  I just hope that people really look and don't just jump on his
bandwagon because he has a less visible past to judge.

  On the whole, you sound a lot like me.  Our opinions seem to coincide
on Bush and Clinton and we would both like to see someone else to vote for.
I just plan on making sure I don't let my frustration guide my activity.
   

Pat 
-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:417 talk.politics.misc:16927