From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: How about reaction to Perot's first TV show?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:11:28 GMT

In <XDkNsB1w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP> dsterner@unkaphaed.UUCP (Don Sterner) writes:


>There were several responses to my earlier message on Perot's first TV
>show. Rather than send several replys I'll combine them here -

>Several  wanted to see his entire plan - someone else has  posted  the
>entire text of the platform on the internet conference alt.politics.perot
>and other conferences. PLEASE obtain that text or read the book. It's an
>eye-opener that makes Iran-Contra or Watergate pale in comparison.

I've read the book.  It didn't tell me much that I wasn't already
aware of.

>>> Perot says his plan has to be delayed
>Ross has NOT stated that his plan cannot be put into effect now due
>to the economy. The platform covers many other issues ranging from the
>cleanup of the legislative process through education reform and 
>healthcare
>action. Much of it CAN be implemented now. Perot's platform is not based
>solely on the ecomomy/deficit issue. The plan remains intact, and will
>only be modified if it makes total sense at the time.

Sorry, but he most certainly HAS said that.  He said it in the first
Presidential debate, the Admiral said it in the Vice Presidential
debate (in passing), and Perot has made the statement numerous times
in interviews.

>>> Perot & Clinton plans are similar
>In any event, there is NO similarity between Ross' plan and Mr. Clinton's
>plan which IMHO is based on government as usual. The central theme of the
>Perot candidacy is involvement of the people in their government.

Have you actually looked at BOTH plans?  There most certainly are a
lot of similar aspects.  Those similarities become even more obvious
if you've been listening to the debates and listen to what they say
their policies are rather than listening to the delivery.

>Keep in mind that the financial aspects of the current Democratic 
>platform
>are considerably different than their actions in the past. Consider also
>that the platform was written before Ross Perot dropped out and while he
>was commanding a significant part of the electorate.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.  Bill Clinton, despite
Republican claims to the contrary, hasn't exactly changed his position
on the budget or what he plans to do.  The platform was written to
address what Bill Clinton wanted (mostly), not as some kind of
reaction to Ross Perot.  And you shouldn't be judging by PLATFORM
anyway, since the candidates are under no obligation at all to live up
to their party platform.  You should judge by what they say, not by
what the platform says.  Have you read Clinton's plan, or do you just
accept the propaganda against it?

>>>Perot is maiing a profit from book sales.
>Perot has personally financed almost all of his campaign out of his 
>pocket.
>I have no idea how much he has spent, but I feel certain that the book 
>money
>is negligible in comparison.

I have to disagree with your 'feeling'.  We're talking about a book
from which Ross Perot gets most of the money and which has been on the
best-seller list for a while now.  That hardly amounts to
chump-change, and Perot simply hasn't spent that much on his
candidacy.  He spent about $2 million or so before he withdrew, the
half-hour TV shows are going for about $400k apiece, and you can
figure that from the time he withdrew until he got back in the race he
spent maybe another million or two.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.