From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:38:08 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <39047@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>
(some specifics about the Perot plan, deleted)
>
>Whatever anyone thinks about Perot's personallity, they can't say that
>his plans lack specifics anymore. His plan is more specific and
>realistic than Bush's or Clinton`s. Even avid detractors, such as the
>LA Times, can only say that "the time is not right for these changes."
>It is never easy, or the 'right time' to make hard (political) choices
>such as these.

Agreed.  It is never the right time for many of these proposals. :)

(more deleted)
>
>>	3) Saudi and Kewait will have revolutions within ten years.
>
>Who really cares? Ten years from now, we (stupid Americans) will be
>well on the way to commercial fusion energy, and the Arab nations will
>not command the excessive attention which they now do.

Well on the way?  Last time I looked into the issue, most
researches believed that commercial fusion power is at least
40-50 years away.

>>If Perot was a housewife from middle America running a genuine grassroots
>>campaign this might be true. As it is the *ONLY* reason why Perot gets given
>>time of day is that he is very, very rich.

>He recieved attention because he has a unique American quality of
>shooting from the hip, and calling it how he sees it.

Hardly uniquely American.  Every country has blustering mountebanks.

>Harry
>Truman ('give-em hell Harry), and Will Rogers both had this quality,
>each with their own flavor. Truman, like Perot, was much more caustic,
>while Rogers was more ironic and sarcastic in tone.

Harry Truman was an extremely adept politician who rose up
through the ranks of rather corrupt ward-boss politics.  His
"give-em-hell" attitude has achieved almost mythological status,
but it was merely one tool in his arsenal of manipulative techniques.
The reality of the Truman administration is much more mundane,
but shows that HST was a much more capable government executive
than Perot will EVER be.

And, Will Rogers debunked all politicians of every stripe.
He was never arrogant enough to believe that his wit
gave him any special talent for governance.

>But it is
>important not to miss the point that there must be large grain of truth
>in what is being said in this manner. If not, the prognosicator soon
>looses his audience. 

Perot IS losing his audience.

>As a European, I don't expect you to understand this unique American
>political tradition. I can't blame you for taking events here and
>interpreting them a European light (i.e. only the rich and powerfull
>can have any input in the governing of a country). Saddly, it is 
>all you know.

Sounds to me (red-blooded middle-aged white male American) like
this "European" has a pretty solid grasp of American politics.
The only reason Perot has gone as far as he has in the electoral
process is due to his large personal bankroll.  If he was merely
a comfortably prosperous small businessman, he would have needed
to go through the same primary / fund-raising process that other
candidates went through (e.g., Tsongas, Buchannan).  And, by
now, he would either have disappeared or been relegated 
to insignificance.

>Perot has struck a nerve with the American populous.

I'll say!  Look at his incredibly high negative rating
in the polls.

>That is why he
>continues to receive attention. I'm in no way defending Perot's
>personality, his actions in this election, or his fitness to be
>President. I will say that he continues to illuminate a very important
>issue in this campaign, and is therefore worthy of the attention he is
>getting.
>
>>Phill Hallam-Baker
>
>				Brad Cote'


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15175 alt.politics.clinton:8495 alt.politics.bush:7734