From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re:  Why perot?
Date: 26 Sep 92 15:18:33 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In response to one of my earlier posts, "Droopy" (Bri) writes:

{Sorry, I didn't keep your full header...}   
>In talk.politics.misc you write:

>>> How he addresed the national deficit? "I could balance the budget without
>>> breaking a sweat."

>> He probably could, because he's the only one with the guts and the plan to do
>>it.  Ask Bush, Quayle, Gore, and Clinton if they even have a plan THAT CAN
>>WORK.

>I doubt BQG and C have a plan that could balance the budget because they
>care if we fall into a depression or not. 

 WHAT??  BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!  Not your fault, though.  That just seems to be what
they are all telling you...

 Seriously, I think we have passed the point of no return and that we are going
to have to endure significant pain if we want to turn this country around,
that's all.

>>> What did Perot talk about besides balancing the budget without a
>>> sweat and slamming the 2 major parties?

>>  What have the two major parties done for the last umpteen years but slam each
>>other and create a $4 trillion debt.  (I think that's the right # of 0's now.)

>At least they pay lip service to other issues. At least Bush can do
>foreign policy once in a while and i trust Clinton on domestic issues.

 And you trust Perot on neither, or you just don't want to give him a chance??

 Seriously, I DON'T WANT A PRESIDENT TO PAY LIP SERVICE TO THOSE ISSUES!!

 <Sorry for the all caps, but this has frustrated me for a long time.>

 I want somebody that's going to do something about things, and I don't see the
Republocrats moving too quickly to help.

>>>>I don't believe that Ross Perot has instant answers for any of us.
>>> 
>>> Then Perot is not getting his message across to you.

>>  His book says he can do it in five years.  You want it tomorrow, go to the
>>Dalai Lama <inswrt other deity here too>.

>Everyone wants it tommorrow.

 That's the problem.  The American people are too stupid and NIMBY to realize
that any real change is going to take further sacrifice on their part too.

>>>>The "Why Perot?" speaks to a sense of a man who will go the distance
>>>>to do his very best, is beholden to know one, and if given a solid
>>>>piece of time, has the imagination, integrity, and intellegence to
>>>>bring the best in the nation into roles of leadership to begin
>>>>addressing these overwhelming national problem.
>>  
>>> Leadership? His very best? Skipping the heat and taking the easy road out by
>>> coming back now? That's what I want, a thin-skinned prez. A guy
>>> who will invade any country that annoys him.

>>  Well, many say the same about the Republicans that were in office (Reagan,
>>Bush) about thin skin and invasions.

>>  As far as skipping the heat, maybe it's his ultimate strategy.  If he can't
>>have the chance to be refuted, his people may vote for him.  Right??

>Reagan and Bush may have had thin skins but they didn't quit when the
>going got tough. Bush has been heavily scrutinized by the press
>during this campaign. Clinton has been too. They  have heavily scrutinized
>each other. Gennifer. Draft dodging. Hillary. Iran-Contra. Neither Bush
>nor Clinton decided to quit. When a tough decision comes up, Prez Perot won't
>be able to say, I'll be back in a few months.

 And that's the one question most will have for Perot, to be sure.  My opinion
is that he felt Bush could be defeated by Clinton alone and that he would get
in the way.  NOw, seeing that people are interested in the book and the economy
not being stressed as it should, he has to do the best for the country, by
getting back in and forcing the candidates to speak to the economy.

 That's one thing that Mario Cuomo had right last night on LKL.

>>  WHOA WHOA WHOA!! He said most like Truman.  And he's not playing by the rules
>>of the two parties, which tend to perpetuate themselves.  Perot may have felt
>>Clinton could beat Bush on his own, but now he may think differently (draft
>>issue, Hillary, taxes, etc.)

>>  Take a good long look at Perot, and you may see the man who will help shape
>>politics into the next century.

>That's what I'm afraid of. At least Bush and Clinton have paid lip service
>to most major issues. 

 Note that I did not say that he himself would be President.  Think about what
could happen to other minor parties if he blasts the two-party monopoly down
this November.  Then Marrou might have a chance in 1996 to have his voice
heard.  Think about it.

>When the going got tough, Perot got going. Now he's back. He's saying, much
>like Bush, I screwed up last time give me another chance. 

 At least Perot was not in office when he made the error.  :)

 If I want perfection in my President, I'll look for the second coming of
Christ by next January.

>Perot couldn't take the heat of a little campaigning. The media was so
>enamored by him that he rarely got scrutinized (at least rarely compared
>to B and C). Then when the honeymoon ended, candidate Perot decided to 
>avoid the heat. If he can't take a little heat in the campaign, I shudder
>to think how he would run the country.

 No, I think candidate Perot decided to implement plan X, and answer all your
questions about not having a platform by putting the platform before the
candidacy, and not the other way around.  Once he saw interest in the platform
and the economy not being as stressed as it should be, he's done what he feels
he has to do.  Perot does not want to be President; he wants to help the
country.  He's biting the bullet, Bri.  He feels he has no other choice.

 I personally shudder to see how Bush could run the country, and I'd rather
basically put two-thirds of the system in the Democrats hands to stop that. 
Perot is here to see things get addressed, and what might happen is that people
will vote for him to send a message.  What scares you is that there could be a
hell of a lot of people that could send that message.  Enough to win the
election??  Prob. not...  Enough to win states and hang the election?? 
Maybe...  Enough to make a difference???  You answer that one...

 Besides, being a Clinton supporter, I'd think you'd love having Perot to help
put Bush away.

						Mike Falkner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.perot