From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Perot ?
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:28:17 GMT
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>In October, Perot will easily be able to convince MORE voters to join him -
>all he has to do is point to what idiots both Clinton and Bush made of
>themselves during the campaign.  Perot is a brilliant man, more brilliant
>than I previously gave him credit for!

  Brilliant?  How so?  Sure, he built himself quite a business with EDS
thanks to all the Medicare/Medicaid work given to him by the government.
Same can be said for any major weapons contractor via the Pentagon too.

  As much as I wanted to see a complete break from the established parties
that have a stranglehold on Washington and this country, I never felt quite
good about Perot.  I always came away with a feeling of someone who is very
adept at defining a problem, but never being able to develop a solution for
it.

  He also strikes me as someone who has a very well defined opinion of how
the world works and little ability to adapt to different views if they don't
jive with his own, even if they are in the majority.

  He also appears to be a control freak, bordering on the maniacal as shown
by the resignation of Ed Rollins.  It wasn't even two months before he quit
Perot, you've got to be one rigid son-of-a-bitch to cause that to happen.

  No, Perot represented more the dissatisfaction with the way things are
run now than a true following of the man himself.  Hopefully, his rise in
popularity makes the Republicans and Democrats sit up and take notice.

>happen :)  So, George Bush is going to win in a landslide, carrying at
>least 40 states.  Perot will come in second, whether he formally announces
>his candidacy or not.  Clinton will come in a distant third.  Now, this
>REALLY REALLY REALLY will happen!

  Odds are, Bush will win, that much I agree with but I'm not ready to say for
sure until after the Republican convention.  Perot might be on the ballot, but
he won't make much of a dent.  His pride will prevent him from reentering the
race.

  I also wouldn't be so quick to write off Clinton yet either.  He faces an
uphill battle, but he still has a chance.

>Clinton is far from the strongest democratic candidate possible.
>He wasn't even the strongest in the original 6 who ran (most
>prominent) in the primaries (note: there were many many other
>dems who ran but simply got zero press).  His record as governor of
>Arkansas is miserable, and his values are highly questionable - he
>cheated on his wife (there are similar claims about Bush, but do not
>forget about his teflon suit :)  His ability to be a statesman is
>highly questionable, and Bush's record is outstanding in foreign
>policy (in case you don't realize it, Bush and his men have guaranteed
>the reduction of nuclear weapons in the world by 80% by the year 2000).

  In case you haven't noticed, foreign policy is not what this country
needs.  He's all but ignored the country, the environment and anything
else that matters to his constituency.

  The reduction of nuclear forces is a no-brainer.  With the collapse of
the Soviet Union you're going to be in a position to tell them what to do and
how to do it if they want to get aid from you.

  And, although I'm not a fan of adultry, I do beleive in one's right to
privacy and the right to handle their life as they see fit.  Declaring
Clinton unfit based on his private life is a common tactic by the Republican
party, it's repulsive and insulting.

  Also, in what aspects is Clinton's record miserable?  Based on education
and budget, he's light years ahead of Bush.  Granted, Arkansas is not a
microcosm of the country, and yes, his record with the environment isn't
so good.  But, neither is Bush's, or is the allowance of selling the right
to pollute a Good Thing?

>Clinton is also a big-time panderer - he just promises people what
>they want to hear with no ability to execute those promises.  What
>can you say about a guy who wants to claim the Perot vote and the
>day after Perot "resigned" he was talking about Perot being a
>cabinet member!

  Bush did much the same thing the day after Perot quit as well which was
even more repulsive considering the massive campaign they launched against
Perot.

  Also, if you look past the rhetoric for a second, the Democrats seem to
be reorganizing their platform vastly.  I happen to like the idea of
empowerment over entitlement.  

>And when people really get into the campaign rhetoric, they will see
>that Clinton is also running against congress.  Where was George
>Mitchell, Dick Gephardt, Pat Moynahan, Teddy Kennedy, Tom Foley,
>or any of the other current Democratic leadership at the convention?

  Kennedy was there, guess you missed him, his nephew and the 15 minute
film on Bobby, eh?

  Most of the others, especially Foley are someone you *don't* want around,
lest you associate yourself with a Congress that represents everything that's
wrong with Washington, RubberGate, et al.

>Perot clearly hurts Clinton's chances by stealing his voters.

  Not in the least.  Perot was a greater threat to Bush in the south which
is predominately conservitive then he was to Clinton.  With Perot in the
race, Clinton's chances were actually better.  If this wasn't the case, the
Republican's would not have focused so much resource att neutralizing his
campaign.

  -jack-